作者：Robert Yang

在我们更深入地探讨艺术哲学（或“美学”）和游戏之前，让我们先想想这个大家想必耳熟能详的问题：“游戏是艺术吗？”（点击此处阅读本系列第一、二、四部分）

-Tim Schafer（游戏邦注：欧美游戏设计师）回答是，因为游戏与艺术一样也能够表达人们的想法和情感。《Shadow of the Colossus》让我和我父亲都大受感动。游戏后我们都安静地待在一间屋子里一个小时之久。

-Matthew Burns表示，谁会在乎这个答案？相反地，我们应该做些更重要的事，如玩玩电子游戏。

-Roger Ebert（游戏邦注：美国最富盛名的影评人）的回答是否定的，他认为艺术是艺术家的创作，而在游戏中却能由玩家创造结果，这种灵活性违背了艺术的意义。人们愿意目睹悲剧的发生，但是却没有哪一个玩家愿意悲剧出现在自己身上——他们都希望能拥有一个“美好的结局”。

-Tale of Tales工作室的答案也是否定的，他们认为艺术是死的而游戏是活的——也可以说是一种“昏睡状态”，但是至少是有生命的。之所以说游戏是一种“昏睡状态”是由游戏本身富有创造性的设置和情节所决定。

显然关于游戏是否等于艺术这一问题存在着各种分歧，我们也仅仅只是把它们当成一种分歧而已。正是因为个人权利和个人自由导致的不同观点才形成当代美学存在的意义。任何东西都可以被成为艺术，几乎所有东西都可能得到任何人的喜爱，每个人对于不同的东西以及艺术体验都有自己的见解。

在2010年7月份的时候Ebert还是坚持观点，认为游戏不能称之为艺术，但是也许对于其他人来说却不然。所以，怎么才能制作出一款好游戏？

在柏拉图时代，艺术欣赏较之现在严格多了。柏拉图认为“美”和“和谐”都是艺术中不可或缺的部分，同时也存在着一定的法度。

games and art(from obsoletegamer.com)

例如，在你的脑子里画一个圈。那有可能是一个很完美的圈。然后尝试徒手，或者使用模板，Photoshop的“画圆”工具画下这个圈。但是不论你如何努力，你所画出的圈都与你脑子里完美的圈存在一定的差距，有可能是像素，分子或者原子而导致的差距。同样的，其它美好的东西在我们用物理表现形式展现出来后总是会与理想效果有所偏离，而仅仅只能作为我们心中完美意象的仿造物罢了。

很多哲学家并不同意在死板的和谐原则下形成的美学观点。他们创造了一种区别于美的“敬畏感”。这种“敬畏感”更为深奥，人类并不能轻易理解它，除非你能在站在太空轨道上俯视地球或者观看到原子弹爆炸等轰动场景才能有所体会。而且这种敬畏感并没有明确指明什么是好的什么是坏的，什么是有趣的什么是无聊的等等。（一些哲学家一直在尝试着将这种敬畏感区分为微弱的敬畏感和强大的敬畏感等等。）

这种“敬畏感”能够用来支持Schafer的答案，即广大游戏玩家认为的“游戏是艺术”。至少在游戏中玩家能够感受到徒然然而生的敬畏感，或者某种难以言表的情感体验。

有些人认为如今已经没有任何一种单一的价值，如“美”，“真实”或者“敬畏感”等能够将艺术统一在一起了。这倒没什么不好，如果一直尝试着去遵从那些单一价值，那么广大艺术家们真的会窒息吧！

当然看，对于Tale of Tales回答“不”也是有原因的，我个人也蛮支持他们的论点。怎样才能制作一款好游戏？那就是不要一味地遵循各种条条框框并强迫玩家反复做着相同的事。

在一个完整的美学论点中，艺术不一定要与美搭上边，不一定带有敬畏感或者不一定是“死的”，艺术也可以具有实践性，并被当成一种有用的工具。

对于那些莫名其妙接受了国家的赞助宣传，但是却设计糟糕的广告，或者将简短的电影画面融入游戏中去拼凑游戏片段等情况，都不能被看成是一种艺术吧。

按照马克思主义美学观点，这些都是对于艺术的腐败商业利用，是一些反面案例。大部分艺术都被赋予强大的力量，伴同文化、政治制度和宗教等形式，构建成一个“超级框架”，使弱小者局限于一种“虚假意识形态”。

过于简单化的描述差不多就是马克思主义对于艺术的相关见解——事实上，它有可能会认为电子游戏是一种恐怖的精神控制法，使人们常常会因为虚构的战争而非现实中的阶级斗争而分心。

为了抵制这种空虚的娱乐形式，马克思主义支持一种全新的游戏模式，即强调社会中的经济不平等，富人的权利不断扩大，穷人的地位越来越渺小等主题。但在马克思主义问世之前，有一种被称为“社会现实主义”的艺术传统就已经存在了（但如今却深受马克思主义的影响），其观点认为一款好的游戏必须代表世界正义，批评任何非正义行为，并为正义而战。

有很多游戏开发者便是按照这一传统开发自己的游戏。Molleindustria （总部位于意大利米兰的游戏工作室）抛弃了“独裁娱乐模式”而追求自由的电子游戏，通过发行一些设计精巧的讽刺性小游戏，如《McDonalds Game》和《Oilgarchy》（游戏邦注：该工作室最近还推出了颇有争议的iOS游戏《Phone Story》）等去描绘各种迫切的社会需求。“Newsgames”将报章杂志与游戏机制结合在一起创造了一种全新风格。非盈利组织Games for Change提倡将人权问题，贫穷以及全球化冲突等问题带入游戏中。我还将阐述《合金装备》系列，《生化奇兵》系列，《侠盗猎车手：圣安地列斯》和《Deus Ex》等游戏在一种社会现实环境下是如何抨击它们所抵制的价值观。相信未来将会有更多游戏加入这个行列。

并非所有马克思主义者都认为社会现实主义能够促成社会公正；也有些人认为社会现实主义太通俗，或者太过平淡无奇。

一位有名的马克思主义艺术家Bertolt Brecht认为不论是在电影，油画还是电子游戏上实行这种模式都将呈现出一种根本的政治性问题，因为它将带动观看者或者玩家变得更加具有批判性。

例如，在游戏中打破“第四堵墙”（游戏邦注：戏剧术语，在镜框式舞台上，人们通常会想象位于舞台台口的一道实际上并不存在的“墙”），直接向玩家诠释故事内容，让他们去思考自己在真实生活中的一些行为。

一款与社会不公相抗衡的好游戏，能够让玩家在正式体验后对自己或者生活进行反思。

另外一位具有影响力的新马克思主义理论家Theodor Adorno宣称艺术不能带有政治性。他认为艺术品（如电子游戏）是一种表达形式，是判断一种东西是否存在的个人自由。出于商业用途或社会善行等而把艺术（或者游戏）当成一种工具，你将不得不牺牲一些个人自由——而牺牲艺术家的自由完全是背叛艺术本质的行为，而因此变成艺术家行列中具有“虚假意识”的马克思主义者。

这么说来，一款好的游戏并不一定能够推动社会公正。一款好的游戏也未必不存在任何政治因素。游戏不应该被当成工具，艺术归艺术，游戏归游戏。

我们又回到了最初念叨的观点了，即“艺术归艺术”。

因为不存在任何决定性的论断用来衡量艺术，所以如此讨论艺术也便没有任何意义了。对于艺术，不同人有不同的品味和看法，而在如今的后现代社会里，我们更是提倡遵从个人喜好。

也许我们的看法是错误的，游戏并不是艺术，但是这并不是基于任何作者所提出的理论思想或者“敬畏感”和马克思主义美学观点。游戏之所以不能称之为艺术，是因为游戏消费者的数量远远多于游戏制作者。

游戏之所以不能称之为艺术是因为游戏编程太难了，常常让人望而却步，反倒是画画和照相容易点。而最容易使用的游戏制作工具，如Unreal，Unity和GameMake也都要求你具备一定的编程知识。即使你努力制作出了一些好游戏，你同样也需要好运气才能让它发行问世。

也许因为你并未亲手制作游戏所以它并不能称之为艺术。也许你会认为一款游戏是好游戏仅仅只是因为它是你制作的。也许我们需要更多更好的画笔——就像我们的祖母早前使用的那些工具。

这么看来，游戏并不是艺术，除非每个人都能亲手设计游戏，并让无数电子游戏充斥着整个游戏市场，就像1983年游戏产业大崩溃的时候。要不是看到了游戏产业辉煌的未来，我们也不会将其称之为“市场泛滥”了，我们不会像以前那样总是追求游戏的商业化，而你的后代可能会嘲笑这种行为。但我们不会再将这种情况称之为游戏产业的崩溃了。

相反地，我们会将其称之为游戏产业的“复兴”。

游戏邦注：原文发表于2010年10月12日，所涉数据和事件均以当时为准。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Philosophy of Game Design – Part Three

by Robert Yang, 12 October 2010 8:39 pm

Before we look more closely at the philosophy of art (or “aesthetics”) and games, let’s just briefly consider some of the answers for that notorious question: “Are games art?”

- YES, says Tim Schafer, because games can express thoughts and feelings just like art can. Shadow of the Colossus made me and my dad cry! Afterward, we sat in a dark room in profound silence for an hour.

- WHO CARES? implies Matthew Burns. Instead we should go do something that’s actually important, like playing videogames.

- NO, says Roger Ebert, because art is about an artist; if the player determines the outcome, that flexibility betrays the artist’s intent. Tragedy is satisfying to witness, but players will rarely choose to plunge themselves into it – they want the “good ending.”

- NO, says Tale of Tales, because art is dead and games are alive – comatose maybe, but still alive. Blame the coma on games that favor established settings and scenarios over innovation and creativity.

While there are clearly some differences of opinion on whether games are art, we still fundamentally regard them as merely “differences of opinion.” Relativistic notions of individual rights and personal freedom have flooded our contemporary sense of aesthetics. Anything can be art, almost anything can be liked by anyone, and everyone has their own personal tastes in things and their experience of art.

Well, that’s kind of the position that Ebert eventually retreated to in July 2010 – that games still weren’t art for him, but maybe they’re art for someone else. So what makes a good game? The existence of any fans who will argue that it’s good.

But artistic appreciation was much more rigid in Plato’s time. He argued specifically for certain values like “beauty” and “harmony” as important aspects of art, but with some stipulations.

For instance, picture a circle in your head. It’s probably a perfect circle. Now try to draw one freehand, or with a stencil, or using the “Circle” tool in Photoshop.

Any physical manifestation of that circle, no matter how hard you try, is always going to be slightly off from that perfect circle – by just a few pixels, molecules or atoms. Similarly, any attempted physical manifestations of ideal beauty (i.e. the “art” a human produces) will always be just slightly off from that ideal, existing only as mere imitations of the perfect mental image.

Many philosophers weren’t satisfied with this idea of beauty founded on rigid principles of harmony and such. They coined a “sublime” separate from beauty. This “sublime” was more about witnessing overwhelming profoundness, admitting that it’s beyond your puny human ability to comprehend it; as if you’re looking down at Earth from orbit, or watching a nuclear bomb explode. It isn’t necessarily indicative of anything, good or bad, tasteful or disgusting, etc. (Some philosophers also tried to distinguish between different kinds of this “awe,” between weak awe and strong awe, and so forth.)

That account of the “sublime” is what supports Schafer’s answer, which is one of the most common “Yes” responses invoked by gamers. What makes a good game? At least one in-game moment that stirs up awe or profound emotion of some kind.

Some might argue that there is no longer any single value like “beauty” or “truth” or “sublime” to unify art today. Which isn’t bad; in trying to conform to any single value like that, perhaps the artist is actually stifling their own expression.

That’s a justification for Tale of Tales’ “No” response, and personally I’m a little sympathetic to that argument. What makes a good game? Not blindly following formal conventions and forcing players to do what they’ve done before.

Then there’s a whole tradition of aesthetics arguing that art isn’t necessarily beautiful or sublime or dead – that art can be practical and useful as a tool.

You might dismiss such “art” as surprisingly decent state-sponsored propaganda, poorly designed and thinly veiled advertisements, or the common groan-inducing movie tie-in game with short scenes from the film as unlockable “extras.”

But no, those are corrupt commercial applications of art and bad examples of art as a tool, argues Marxist aesthetics. Most art has been co-opted by the powerful to keep the powerless in a state of constant distraction – this art, along with culture, political institutions and religion (“opiate of the masses”) forms the “superstructure” that keeps the powerless in a state of “false consciousness.”

That gross oversimplification is more or less how Marxism feels about art – in fact, it would probably point menacingly at videogames as a startlingly dangerous type of mind control, distracting us with a fictional war against the Zerg instead of our real-life ongoing class struggle against the rich.

To fight such empty entertainment, Marxism would argue for a new revolutionary type of game that highlights economic inequities in society, the growing power of the rich and the weakness of the poor. Existing long before Marxism but now heavily influenced by it, this artistic tradition is known as “social realism:” a good game fights for social justice in the world by representing it and critiquing it.

Many game developers operate in this tradition. Molleindustria seeks to “free videogames from the ‘dictatorship of entertainment,’ using them instead to describe pressing social needs” with well-designed satirical flash games like the McDonalds Game and Oilgarchy. The “Newsgames” project aims to coin a new genre that merges journalism with mechanics. Games for Change advocates new ways to bring awareness to human rights issues, poverty and global conflicts. I would also argue that the

Metal Gear Solid series, BioShock series, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Deus Ex operate in a kind of a social realist context and attack the values they see as oppression. The list goes on.

But not all Marxists agreed that social realism best advanced social justice; some felt it was too vulgar, too obvious or too comfortable.

One famous Marxist artist, Bertolt Brecht, argued that experimenting with the form itself – whether in theater, painting or perhaps videogames – would be intrinsically political because it would force the viewer or player to be more critical. Breaking the fourth wall and directly addressing the player, for example, might force him or her to reflect on their real-life actions.

A good game fights for social justice through formal experimentation that encourages players to reflect on themselves.

Another incredibly influential neo-Marxist theorist, Theodor Adorno, claimed that art should not be political at all. He argued that artworks (like videogames) were forms of expression, symbols of our personal freedom to will things into existence. By using art (or games) as a tool, for commercial exploitation or social good or otherwise, you sacrifice your freedom to some outside purpose – and sacrificing any artistic freedom is the ultimate betrayal of art and fosters that Marxist “false consciousness” within the artist.

By this account, a good game doesn’t advance social justice. A good game remains as apolitical as possible. Games should not be used as tools; art is art and games are games.

Now we’re back where we started, muttering horribly pointless things like “art is art” and you’re probably rolling your eyes.

Again, talking about art like this might feel useless because there are no definitive judgments to be made about art. Everyone has their own opinion and taste in art and we generally respect that as a matter of personal preference in this postmodern age.

Maybe everyone had it wrong. Games aren’t art – but not because some of some theoretical idea of authorship or the “sublime” or Marxist aesthetics. Games aren’t art because so few people are making them compared to the huge amount consuming them.

Games aren’t art because learning how to code is still too daunting, while comparatively anyone can pick up a paintbrush or a camera and start making work. The most user-friendly solutions like Unreal, Unity and GameMaker still require substantial programming knowledge. Even if you do manage to make something that works, good luck getting distribution on any console!

So maybe games aren’t art because you aren’t making them. Maybe a good game is a game that you made. Maybe we need more and better paintbrushes – more intuitive ones that my grandmother can use.

In this sense, games won’t be art until there are millions of videogames, designed by everyone, flooding the marketplace like in 1983 with the crash of the game industry. Except in this glorious future we won’t call it “flooding the marketplace” because we won’t commodify games like that anymore and your children will laugh at you for doing so. No, we won’t call it “the crash.”

Instead, we’ll call it “the renaissance.”（source:escapistmagazine）