I have to disagree about some of your thesis. There are things onto which we place aesthetics that technically don't need them -- think light switches, for instance -- but which we want to make more pleasurable for ourselves to interact with. Then there are things that make us think. Visual arts and literature, in particular. They are about ideas. So a game might be about the system, but it might also be about an idea, or an experience that makes you think. Not necessarily but if it has a story, what is the story's purpose -- to engage us purely on an aesthetic level or to convey a message? I think the short answer is that beauty is something different than aesthetics is something different than art. In any event it's all personal. Otherwise, a light switch is just a light switch is just a light switch. Anyway, what were we talking about?
There certainly aren't clear lines between something that has utility and something that's just for the sake of 'beauty'. The whole dissection of aesthetics is fraught, and Frank does a way better job of it in the book than I was able to muster in a few paragraphs.
I would say that light switches do have an aesthetic dimension, to the degree that there are aspects of a light switch that we care about that go beyond its functional purpose, aspects that we appreciate for their own sake.
Likewise, when it comes to the expression of ideas, it is the degree to which the experience of the expression of the idea is, itself, a fundamental aspect of the value we derive, that makes it aesthetic. As an example, imagine taking a pill that magically transmits the "ideas" of Madame Bovary into your head, the way Neo downloads how to fly a helicopter. We would balk at that, we would think that misses some essential aspect of what makes reading a novel an aesthetic experience. You wouldn't want to skip the experience of reading a novel to "get" the message it contains. Or, if you did, we would think you were missing some essential part of reading a novel that makes it aesthetic. But you might gladly skip the experience of flipping switches to have your lights automatically go on and off at the right times. On my view, that's the essential difference between aesthetic and non-aesthetic, in broad strokes.
Don’t forget, it just gives you the ideas, not the experience, that’s the point! I will admit, however, that as soon as I said that I had the same thought as you, these issues are complicated, :/
With any definition you can find exceptions at the edges, but saying aesthetics have no specific utility (as opposed to saying they "are not generally sought out for any utility they might have" or similar) seems to me to paint with a brush broad enough that it immediately goes outside the lines, for games especially. Sports are an entire category of games which I think a very significant proportion of the players pursue mainly, sometimes entirely, for their utility (physical fitness). I think your new definition would likely encompass puzzles as well, which I'm guessing has a similarly significant subset of players pursuing them for the utility of mental fitness.
I guess this puts the definition of "utility" under the cross hairs, and I'm guessing that's the sort of thing you just don't have time to expand on in a brief overview of the thoughts of the book. Maybe the author goes into great detail about exactly what utility means in this context? All the same, I do think this is a really thought-provoking article and interesting perspective. I'm just trying to poke at it a bit to better understand your thoughts on this.
A different way of classifying aesthetics, at least for this context, occurred to me, and I'm curious what you think of it: utility is pursued to know something, aesthetic is pursued to feel something. (I'm using "know" as offering some sort of information that helps someone predict their environment in some way, offering utility for survival ultimately.) This is obviously a broad and fuzzy definition (doesn't it feel good to learn something, for instance? Isn't it useful to feel good?); but I'm curious what you think of it, and if you would agree that it draws a slightly clearer border around what is and is not a game.
Yes, I try to address these exact sort of questions in the book, hopefully successfully!
In broad strokes:
- I'm mostly trying to invoke "aesthetics" as a general domain, not a precisely-defined quality
- Having said that, I do think it's important to emphasize the "for its own sake" quality of aesthetics, which I do think generally holds and is, in my view, of crucial importance
- So, for the examples you give above, if someone pursues sports *solely* for physical fitness, such that, if you offered them a button to push to instantly get the fitness benefits they would gladly stop playing the sport and push the button instead, then I would claim that *yes* that indicates a purely utilitarian, non-aesthetic attitude towards the sport (same for your puzzle game / mental health example)
- What I think is common is for these activities to have a messy, ambiguous combination of utilitarian and aesthetic qualities
- One of my goals in framing things this way is to show that games, like all primarily aesthetic experiences, aren't *simply reducible* to other values, they can't be fully explained away by reference to utilitarian causes and purposes, not that they can't contain them at all
I like your proposed knowing vs feeling way of framing aesthetics and think it's actually pretty co-extensive with mine. Your question of whether it's useful to feel good is the kind of hard and important question that I wrestle with in the book. The main point I arrive at is that you can't "cash out" everything in one, single "currency" of value, and that aesthetic experiences, like games, demonstrate this.
What makes games especially interesting is that they do so, while, internally, making "value" an explicit and precisely-defined thing (in the form of the game's goal), for me, that's a wonderful paradox!
Geoff, thanks so much for the wonderful write-up. Also really appreciate the thoughtful comments from your readers!
Thanks for writing such a thoughtful book!
I have to disagree about some of your thesis. There are things onto which we place aesthetics that technically don't need them -- think light switches, for instance -- but which we want to make more pleasurable for ourselves to interact with. Then there are things that make us think. Visual arts and literature, in particular. They are about ideas. So a game might be about the system, but it might also be about an idea, or an experience that makes you think. Not necessarily but if it has a story, what is the story's purpose -- to engage us purely on an aesthetic level or to convey a message? I think the short answer is that beauty is something different than aesthetics is something different than art. In any event it's all personal. Otherwise, a light switch is just a light switch is just a light switch. Anyway, what were we talking about?
There certainly aren't clear lines between something that has utility and something that's just for the sake of 'beauty'. The whole dissection of aesthetics is fraught, and Frank does a way better job of it in the book than I was able to muster in a few paragraphs.
I would say that light switches do have an aesthetic dimension, to the degree that there are aspects of a light switch that we care about that go beyond its functional purpose, aspects that we appreciate for their own sake.
Likewise, when it comes to the expression of ideas, it is the degree to which the experience of the expression of the idea is, itself, a fundamental aspect of the value we derive, that makes it aesthetic. As an example, imagine taking a pill that magically transmits the "ideas" of Madame Bovary into your head, the way Neo downloads how to fly a helicopter. We would balk at that, we would think that misses some essential aspect of what makes reading a novel an aesthetic experience. You wouldn't want to skip the experience of reading a novel to "get" the message it contains. Or, if you did, we would think you were missing some essential part of reading a novel that makes it aesthetic. But you might gladly skip the experience of flipping switches to have your lights automatically go on and off at the right times. On my view, that's the essential difference between aesthetic and non-aesthetic, in broad strokes.
A pill that gives me an experience of a story? I might call that a highly aesthetic pill.
Don’t forget, it just gives you the ideas, not the experience, that’s the point! I will admit, however, that as soon as I said that I had the same thought as you, these issues are complicated, :/
With any definition you can find exceptions at the edges, but saying aesthetics have no specific utility (as opposed to saying they "are not generally sought out for any utility they might have" or similar) seems to me to paint with a brush broad enough that it immediately goes outside the lines, for games especially. Sports are an entire category of games which I think a very significant proportion of the players pursue mainly, sometimes entirely, for their utility (physical fitness). I think your new definition would likely encompass puzzles as well, which I'm guessing has a similarly significant subset of players pursuing them for the utility of mental fitness.
I guess this puts the definition of "utility" under the cross hairs, and I'm guessing that's the sort of thing you just don't have time to expand on in a brief overview of the thoughts of the book. Maybe the author goes into great detail about exactly what utility means in this context? All the same, I do think this is a really thought-provoking article and interesting perspective. I'm just trying to poke at it a bit to better understand your thoughts on this.
A different way of classifying aesthetics, at least for this context, occurred to me, and I'm curious what you think of it: utility is pursued to know something, aesthetic is pursued to feel something. (I'm using "know" as offering some sort of information that helps someone predict their environment in some way, offering utility for survival ultimately.) This is obviously a broad and fuzzy definition (doesn't it feel good to learn something, for instance? Isn't it useful to feel good?); but I'm curious what you think of it, and if you would agree that it draws a slightly clearer border around what is and is not a game.
Yes, I try to address these exact sort of questions in the book, hopefully successfully!
In broad strokes:
- I'm mostly trying to invoke "aesthetics" as a general domain, not a precisely-defined quality
- Having said that, I do think it's important to emphasize the "for its own sake" quality of aesthetics, which I do think generally holds and is, in my view, of crucial importance
- So, for the examples you give above, if someone pursues sports *solely* for physical fitness, such that, if you offered them a button to push to instantly get the fitness benefits they would gladly stop playing the sport and push the button instead, then I would claim that *yes* that indicates a purely utilitarian, non-aesthetic attitude towards the sport (same for your puzzle game / mental health example)
- What I think is common is for these activities to have a messy, ambiguous combination of utilitarian and aesthetic qualities
- One of my goals in framing things this way is to show that games, like all primarily aesthetic experiences, aren't *simply reducible* to other values, they can't be fully explained away by reference to utilitarian causes and purposes, not that they can't contain them at all
I like your proposed knowing vs feeling way of framing aesthetics and think it's actually pretty co-extensive with mine. Your question of whether it's useful to feel good is the kind of hard and important question that I wrestle with in the book. The main point I arrive at is that you can't "cash out" everything in one, single "currency" of value, and that aesthetic experiences, like games, demonstrate this.
What makes games especially interesting is that they do so, while, internally, making "value" an explicit and precisely-defined thing (in the form of the game's goal), for me, that's a wonderful paradox!
To my reading list!
Curious about your thoughts on C Thi Nguyen book ‘Games:Agency As Art’. Have you read it?
I have not! The quote I included above is from that book, so it is now on my list.
It's great, you'll love it!