{"id":2036,"date":"2015-02-11T21:31:49","date_gmt":"2015-02-11T20:31:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/?p=2036"},"modified":"2025-01-03T13:56:47","modified_gmt":"2025-01-03T12:56:47","slug":"a-brief-history-of-anti-formalism-in-video-games","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/2015\/02\/11\/a-brief-history-of-anti-formalism-in-video-games\/","title":{"rendered":"A brief History of Anti-Formalism in Video Games"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>This is my eleventh\u00a0monthly\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/category\/games\/patch-wednesday\">Patch Wednesday<\/a>\u00a0post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or not\u00a0posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas and invite comments.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><em>The series is\u00a0called\u00a0Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The word\u00a0<em>formalism<\/em> has resurfaced again in discussions around video games (<a href=\"https:\/\/storify.com\/landonscribbles\/ludocentrism-in-games\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/hapticfeedbackgames.blogspot.ca\/2015\/01\/on-ghost-of-formalism_62.html\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gamasutra.com\/blogs\/FrankLantz\/20150120\/234524\/More_Thoughts_on_Formalism.php\">here<\/a>). This post is not\u00a0specifically about that discussion, but I would like to use the moment to\u00a0discuss the idea of\u00a0<em>formalism<\/em> in video game studies.<\/p>\n<p>First:\u00a0<em>Formalism,\u00a0formalist\u00a0<\/em>and more specifically\u00a0<em>anti-formalism<\/em> have appeared a number of times in discussions around video games, but with often contradictory meanings. With this post I am attempting\u00a0to give an overview of\u00a0the terms&#8217; history in relation to video games.<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>tl;dr The term &#8220;Formalism&#8221; has no particular set meaning and its politics are wildly contradictory. Its only universal meaning is the derogatory function of denouncing someone as theoretically, morally or politically bankrupt. But there are many interesting discussions in the details.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Let us go through the\u00a0history and number the anti-formalisms we meet. Warning: If you are not familiar with every discussion, this will be quite\u00a0compact.\u00a0I identify 8\u00a0variations of anti-formalism, the 7 of which relate to video games. Here is the list.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Formalism #1: Experiments are formalist.\u00a0Don\u2019t make experimental art \u2013 that would make\u00a0you an enemy of the people<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Formalism #2: Experiments are formalist. Form, experiments or aesthetics\u00a0are anti-political (or anti-progressive)<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Formalism #3: Experiments are formalist, and experiments are a way of\u00a0fighting against oppression, and for\u00a0letting marginalized voices speak<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Formalism #4: Defining things is formalism, and\u00a0formalism is a way of locking down video games to prevent experimentation<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Formalism\u00a0#5: Formalism = looking at game rules to the exclusion\u00a0of looking at story, experience, meaning<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Formalism\u00a0#6: Formalism =\u00a0assuming that game meaning comes exclusively from the game rules<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Formalism\u00a0#7: Formalism = looking at game\u00a0design to the detriment of looking at players<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Formalism\u00a0#8: Formalism =\u00a0game definitions as stifling +\u00a0focusing too much on rules<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h1><strong>Formalism #1: Experiments are formalist.\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Don&#8217;t make experimental art &#8211; that would make\u00a0you an enemy of the people<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>The history of anti-formalism really starts with <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dmitri_Shostakovich\">Shostakovich <\/a>and the 1948\u00a0Khrennikov decree in the Soviet Union (I&#8217;ve written about it <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/we-will-stop-all-manifestations-of-formalism-and-decadence\">here<\/a>), according to which composers should stop making formalist (i.e. experimental)\u00a0music.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Khrennikov reported that people \u201call over the USSR\u201d had \u201cvoted unanimously\u201d to condemn the so-called formalists and let it be known that those named in the decree were now officially regarded as little better than traitors: \u201cEnough of these pseudo-philosophic symphonies! Armed with clear party directives, we will stop all manifestations of formalism and decadence.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;Formalist&#8221; and &#8220;formalism&#8221; in this case meant anything experimental, and anything non-sanctioned by the regime.\u00a0Fun fact:\u00a0Shostakovich wrote a piece called\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=4MPyYYrAWb8\">Anti-Formalist Rayok<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(text\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.wqxr.org\/#!\/story\/204134-houston-symphony-plays-subversive-shostakovich\/\">here<\/a>)\u00a0making fun of a committee meeting about stamping out formalism in music. &#8220;O let us love all that\u2019s beautiful, charming, and elegant, let us love all that\u2019s aesthetic, harmonious, melodious, legal, polyphonic, popular, and classical!&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>This is the original variation of anti-formalist thought, and I think this is the one whose echoes we are still hearing.\u00a0It is clear\u00a0that we can divide this in to some subthreads, but this is the source of the baseline\u00a0air of\u00a0accusation that is\u00a0present when\u00a0someone denounces someone else as\u00a0<em>formalist.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s\u00a0not much of a stretch to see the relation between Soviet-era anti-formalism and other types of conservative attempts at\u00a0preventing art experimentation.<\/p>\n<h1><strong>Formalism #2: Experiments are formalist. Form, experiments or aesthetics\u00a0are anti-political (or anti-progressive)<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>This is a common\u00a0extrapolation\u00a0of formalism #1: don&#8217;t play around with form, just state your politics in a well-known format. Similarly, from a theoretical standpoint: don&#8217;t analyze form, just analyze politics (or lived experience).<\/p>\n<p>In prescriptive variations, this can be perceived as quite stifling. Those\u00a0who lived through 1970&#8217;s will often, regardless of their political persuasion, talk about how oppressive the atmosphere could be, with constant requirements that all aspects of culture should be subservient to dominant political ideas. I am not saying that this necessarily applies to the criticisms I just mentioned, but it is a\u00a0mode of thinking that has been used to such ends.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, there are\u00a0particular stories concerning (for example) painting, where (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.theartstory.org\/section_theory_formalism.htm\">it is usually said<\/a>) formalist art criticism hailed abstract expression as the highest form of painting, thereby concretely focusing on\u00a0<em>form<\/em> to the exclusion of other issues. Such as, say, representation, politics. (Ian Bogost also discusses the broader history of the term <a href=\"http:\/\/bogost.com\/writing\/blog\/game-studies-year-fifteen\/\">here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<h1><strong>Formalism #3: Experiments are formalist, and experiments are a way of\u00a0fighting against oppression, and for\u00a0letting marginalized voices speak.<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>If we consider\u00a0that the\u00a0Khrennikov decree was written under Stalin, then anti-formalist thought can also be seen as a way of protecting the powers that be against ambiguity and new voices speaking. To me, this speaks to my discomfort\u00a0that some committee, however nice, should\u00a0decide what experiments we\u00a0are or aren&#8217;t allowed to use.<\/p>\n<p>Formalism #3 is therefore completely contradictory to formalism #2, because experiments in form are\u00a0assigned a completely negative role in #2, but a positive role in #3.<\/p>\n<p>I\u00a0recently wrote about how <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/are-game-experiments-apolitical\">magic realism<\/a>\u00a0was interpreted as a way of\u00a0saying what could not be said in traditional novel form. Rushdie says:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>El realismo magical, magic realism, at least as practised by M\u00e1rquez, is a development out of Surrealism that expresses a genuinely \u2018Third World\u2019 consciousness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The recent wave of <a href=\"http:\/\/twinery.org\/\">Twine games<\/a>\u00a0is distinctly formalist in this sense: finding new form for games to express what cannot be expressed in traditional game form.<\/p>\n<h1><strong>Formalism #4: Defining things is formalism, and\u00a0f<\/strong><strong>ormalism is a way of locking down video games to prevent experimentation<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>Here\u00a0formalism\/formalist are not used to describe particular works or creators, but are instead applied to theorists:<\/p>\n<p>In the so-called &#8220;Zinesters vs. formalists&#8221; debate (summarized <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gamasutra.com\/view\/news\/190456\/\">at the bottom of this post<\/a>), some\u00a0people, especially in the Twine community, felt\u00a0that \u00a0their work was being excluded by\u00a0<em>formalists<\/em>\u00a0(mostly identified as Raph Koster) who were applying narrow definitions of what games are.<\/p>\n<p>In the\u00a0slightly different context of\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=H0ReU2tvLFo&amp;feature=youtu.be\">Jamin Brophy-Warren&#8217;s PBS show<\/a>, I was also identified as a <em>formalist<\/em>\u00a0(though not in a bad way) for having made a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/text\/gameplayerworld\/\">video game definition<\/a>.\u00a0This is a tad more subtle. &#8220;Formalist&#8221; may be a\u00a0misnomer in this case, given that has an uncertain\u00a0relation to any previous uses of the term.<\/p>\n<p>As for the\u00a0content of that discussion, I do think there is a distinction between\u00a0<em>is<\/em> and\u00a0<em>aught<\/em>: to identify historical cultural expectations for things called &#8220;games&#8221; (as I <em>mostly<\/em> do at least, hence the name &#8220;classic game model&#8221;) is very different from claiming that this <em>should<\/em> be used to evaluate or exclude experiments. I do also find that identifying expectations and conventions are a great way to generate new ideas and experiments. And I have a deep-seated\u00a0hunger for game experiments.<\/p>\n<p>The flip side of it is that nobody is really <em>that<\/em> aesthetically inclusive anyway:\u00a0no &#8220;game&#8221; festival is going to\u00a0include a word processor in the competition lineup, so isn&#8217;t it preferable to ask ourselves if we have criteria than to pretend that we don&#8217;t?\u00a0(Writing this does make me consider whether you could make a mystery game that was basically a\u00a0modified version of Libreoffice.)<\/p>\n<h1><strong>Formalism\u00a0#5: Formalism = looking at game rules to the exclusion\u00a0of looking at story, experience, meaning<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>This is at least how I interpret\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/inventingthemedium.com\/2013\/06\/28\/the-last-word-on-ludology-v-narratology-2005\/\">Janet Murray&#8217;s 2005 DiGRA keynote<\/a>\u00a0(with its wonderful &#8220;mind of winter&#8221; metaphor):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>According to the formalist view Tetris can only be understood as a abstract pattern of counters, rules, and player action, and the pattern means nothing beyond itself, and every game can be understood as if it were equally abstract. &#8230;\u00a0To be a games scholar of this school you must have what American poet Wallace Stevens called\u00a0 \u201ca mind of winter\u201d ; you must be able to look at highly emotive, narrative, semiotically charged objects and see only their abstract game function.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Again, formalists are theorists, and in this case they emphasize rules structures to the exclusion of everything else.<\/p>\n<p>Note that ludology and narratology\u00a0are equally\u00a0<em>formalist<\/em> according to some views (se #7 below).<\/p>\n<h1><strong>Formalism\u00a0#6: Formalism =\u00a0assuming that game meaning comes exclusively from the game rules<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>This is what Miguel Sicart goes up against in\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/gamestudies.org\/1103\/articles\/sicart_ap\">Against Procedurality<\/a>: the idea\u00a0that game <em>meaning<\/em>\u00a0comes exclusively from game rules (rather than from graphics, story etc..), and in a completely deterministic way.<\/p>\n<h1><strong>Formalism\u00a0#7: Formalism = looking at game\u00a0design to the detriment of looking at players<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ybika\">TL Taylor<\/a>\u00a0recently <a href=\"https:\/\/storify.com\/ybika\/early-critical-interventions\">tweeted\u00a0a series of quotes from what she considers criticisms of\u00a0<em>formalist<\/em>\u00a0video game theory<\/a>, let me cite\u00a0a few:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p id=\"posttext\">(written by John Dovey and Helen Kennedy in 2006) &#8220;As already indicated, these &#8216;rules&#8217; shape and structure our experience of a game to a greater or lesser degree, but they do not inevitably determine our whole experience. [&#8230;] These kinds of activity and experience [cheating and mods] cannot adequately be accounted for by a reliance solely on structural or formalistic accounts of games.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>(Jenny Sunden in 2009) &#8220;The tension between these two directions in game studies, between games as mechanical-aesthetic objects and games as social practices, echoes the kind of friction between &#8216;playing the game&#8217; and &#8216;being played by the game&#8217; characteristic of any act of game play.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>(<a href=\"http:\/\/www.itu.dk\/people\/tltaylor\/papers\/Taylor-AssemblageOfPlay.pdf\">TL herself)<\/a>:\u00a0Running nearly parallel to the familiar track of the classic narratology\/ludology framing has been scholarship that sought to understand actual players and their everyday practices, as well as research that considered broader structural contexts and histories at work in the construction of play.<\/p>\n<p>(Mia Consalvo\u00a0in 2009) &#8220;What if, rather than relying on structuralist definitions of what is a game, we view a game as a contextual, dynamic activity, which players must engage with for meaning to be made. Furthermore, it is only through that engagement that the game is made to mean&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>As you can see, the criticism does not concern\u00a0rules or\u00a0definitions <em>as such<\/em>, but rather the assumption that game design\u00a0is\u00a0able to determine actual use by players. Formalism here therefore is a shorthand for\u00a0focus on game design, including as story, graphics etc&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>The difference between #5 and #7 is that #5 promotes\u00a0the interpretive tools of the humanities, while #7\u00a0promotes a social science perspective.<\/p>\n<h1><strong>Formalism\u00a0#8: Formalism =\u00a0game definitions as stifling +\u00a0focusing too much on rules<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>Which brings us to the present day. I see the current discussion\u00a0(<a href=\"https:\/\/storify.com\/landonscribbles\/ludocentrism-in-games\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/hapticfeedbackgames.blogspot.ca\/2015\/01\/on-ghost-of-formalism_62.html\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gamasutra.com\/blogs\/FrankLantz\/20150120\/234524\/More_Thoughts_on_Formalism.php\">here<\/a>) as being a combination of Formalism #4 (game definitions as stifling) and Formalism #5 (focusing too much on rules). This is one of the reasons why it has been a confusing discussion: different things were meant when people said &#8220;formalism&#8221;.<\/p>\n<h1>Conclusion: Which formalism is right for you?<\/h1>\n<p>Short answer: <em>none<\/em>. It&#8217;s a term with many contradictory meanings &amp; politics and lots of bad historical baggage. It&#8217;s also not conducive to discussion.<\/p>\n<p>Here are some names for the\u00a0fallacies\u00a0we are often guilty of in these discussions.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>You are\u00a0<em>x<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0This is probably not as conducive to discussions as\u00a0&#8220;is it possible that you are overemphasizing\u00a0<em>x<\/em>&#8220;?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Counterfactual generalization by point sample<\/strong>: generalization made explicitly without considering whether it is true, i.e. saying that &#8220;<em>a<\/em> excludes looking at\u00a0<em>b&#8221; <\/em>even though there is a chapter on <em>b<\/em> immediately following the chapter on <em>a<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Graduate luck<\/strong>: The\u00a0amazing stroke of luck when your graduate studies\u00a0just happen to be in the theoretical tradition that is superior to all the others. (We have all been there.)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Exclusion by proxy<\/strong>:\u00a0arguing that a\u00a0perspective you dislike is exclusionary of other perspectives and therefore has to be excluded.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This is my eleventh\u00a0monthly\u00a0Patch Wednesday\u00a0post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or not\u00a0posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas and invite comments.\u00a0 The series is\u00a0called\u00a0Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies. The word\u00a0formalism has resurfaced again in discussions &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/2015\/02\/11\/a-brief-history-of-anti-formalism-in-video-games\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;A brief History of Anti-Formalism in Video Games&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2036","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-games","category-patch-wednesday"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2036","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2036"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2036\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3133,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2036\/revisions\/3133"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}