There has been some discussion lately (on my G+, and on +Vincent Baker's blog anyway) about artistic ethics. Primarily, in that sometimes, art hurts people and what does that mean for the ethics of the artist?

Obviously, we're speaking about games, specifically role-playing games, but I think that the point is probably more broadly applicable.

Artists don't have a Hippocratic Oath, and I think that this is true for a reason. Most art harms people, one way or another [1]. Games often harm their own audience, by giving them artificial desires and then frustrating those desires, or setting friends in competition against each other. These are important features of games! A game that doesn't have these features probably isn't a very good game [2].

So, do I think that games are evil? If I did, I wouldn't be doing them. I think games can bring us closer together, can give us things to strive for, can place us into different perspectives and experiences, and teach us about systems in an intuitive way that no other method can manage, and are just plain fun.

But, in the process of all of these, there's also harm.

And that's the ideal case. Also, in almost every situation, there will be people who will be harmed by your art who aren't even the beneficiaries of it at all. People who will be insulted by it, feel diminished or belittled or attacked, or who will reject its very existence as vile and profane.

This isn't limited to works that are bad or wrong or lesser. Rite of Spring, a truly amazing work, incited a riot when it was first performed [3]. That was real harm that it did, to its audience and orchestra. They genuinely felt betrayed and belittled and incensed. But do I think that Stravinski should not have composed it, or Nijinsky choreographed it? Hell no. It's an amazing piece of art and its made humanity richer for it.

But, on the other hand, I'm not going to say "if you harm someone, it's good art." Plenty of art is just provocative trash. The question is how to tell which one you're making (or which one you're reading, or playing, or watching.)

That is an assessment we all have to make for ourselves, as artists, critics and audience. Some people consider who the art hurts ("punching up" vs "punching down.") Some consider how lasting the harm is, or how severe, or whether its balanced by benefit, or a thousand other ways we make these trade-offs in our life. Still other people consider the intentions and attitude of the artist, or the society that the art is produced in, or read in. Or whatever complicated mix.

I worry that this will be read as dismissing the issue, but it's not. There's no abstract, objective, or mathematical way of establishing whether a piece of art does unwarranted harm. But that doesn't mean its not an important question, and not something we should be considering how to handle in our own work, both artistic and critical.

[1] Most perfect summary of this: https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/577620034819756032 )
[2] Please feel free to prove me wrong on this point, ideally with some design work.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring#Premiere
A repeated complaint I see about artists / authors / designers is that they're "not able to take critique." This is actually a pretty serious accusation: a person who can't take critique about their craft is not going to be able to consistently produce. But I think we should look at a bit of taxonomy.

* Reviews tell an audience of potential consumers whether or not they should buy a thing, and why.

* Critique talks about how something works, how it doesn’t work, and how to make it better. It happens while a thing is in progress, generally.

* Criticism is a work of its own that discusses how the thing fits into its genre, its artform, its society, the reader’s life, personal and human experience, and so on.

* Randomly being a shithead is declaring things to be “good” or “bad” without any attached examples or arguments or justifications (or with paper thing ones), telling the author personal things about themselves or just flat out insulting or threatening them.

Authors tend to respond badly to reviews: this is to be expected. Generally it's considered professional to complain in private, rather than in public, but we can forgive people in an emotional profession for undue emotional outpouring and, sympathetic to them, just ignore it.

We all need to be able to take critique, but of course it's a frustrating and raw process.

Criticism -- particularly if it's good criticism -- is a gift to humanity and everyone should love it.

The proper, formal response to someone being a random shithead is "fuck off."

So, before complaining about "someone not being able to take critique" figure out which one you're actually doing and, in that context, whether or not the response is appropriate.

(There is almost certainly some bullshit brewing on G+ right now that people will imagine this is about. It is not. It is a general statement about a thing which I've been observing for years. Please do not bring specific bullshit here, or to me.)
The difference between
"Everyone should just make the games they want to make."
and
"Everyone should be able to make the games they want to make."

seems subtle, but is actually fucking vast.

Profile

P H Lee

March 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 12:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios