The Following Phrases

A new issue of hyperrhiz came out recently, collecting a few papers and projects from the 2008 ELO Conference Visionary Landscapes. Daniel Howe and I have an article in the issue addressing questions of digital pedagogy and providing an analysis of digital writing workshops based on principles of generative literature–largely in relation to Daniel’s RiTa library for Processing. The article: “The Aesthetics of Generative Literature: Lessons from a Digital Writing Workshop.”

Abstract:

This paper explores a range of issues related to the pedagogy and practice of generative writing in programmable media. We begin with a brief description of the RiTa toolkit – a set of computational tools designed to facilitate the practice of generative writing. We then describe our experiences using these tools in a series of digital writing workshops at Brown University in 2007-2008. We discuss and theoretically examine a set of core issues raised by workshop participants — distributed authorship, the aesthetics of surprise, materiality, push-back, layering, and others — and attempt to situate them within the larger discourse of generative art and writing practice.

I returned from London a few days ago where I was attending the Digital Games Research Association Conference. It was a nice time, meeting new folks and sampling the current state of “Game Studies.” I presented a paper on Diner Dash and casual games–spending most of my time engaged in a close reading of the narrative/visual representations of the game as they apply to gameplay. I was pleasantly surprised to hear an excellent video presentation by Shira Chess on Diner Dash that investigated many similar issues as the dissertation chapter I have been working on! It’s exciting to see that other people are researching time management games such as Diner Dash from a feminist perspective, and especially in terms of (some) time management games emerging as a genre particularly addressed to women. Shira did a fantastic job of analyzing the relationship between productivity and the breakdown of the boundaries between work & play, especially concerning differences in leisure time between men and women and the “emotional labor” which is subtly (but not so subtly!) ingrained within the gameplay of Diner Dash. Anyway, lots to think about after seeing her presentation. Although I haven’t read her paper (and thus the following is only extracted from seeing her presentation), it seemed that we were interested in a similar dynamic contained within Diner Dash–where positive and progressive elements in the gametext are intermixed with more suspect elements which draw on conventional (and stereotypical) notions of women’s labor. In my chapter I examine the production of desire for social change within the game while analyzing the simultaneous management of such desire, channeling it back into the status quo where the “social change” is seemingly diffused. Such a strategy, of course, follows other examinations of popular culture, for example, in Jameson’s “Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture” and then in the work of Tanya Modleski on romance novels, soap operas, etc.. In any event, I think the genre of time management games such as Diner Dash (and the unbelievable number of sequels and clones that game has helped generate) is an excellent source for analyzing the relationship between women and games. One benefit of discussing these games as an emergent women’s video game genre would be to focus on actual games that women like to play. As has been noted by some prominent feminist scholars of game studies, there seems to be a lack of textual and ethnographic analysis of games that women enjoy playing. Another benefit, I think, would be the ability to draw connections between these games and older genres such as television soap operas. There is a tendency in game studies–sometimes frustrating–to state that video games are completely different from film or television; or, to say that while there are similarities between the different media forms, game studies should be focused only on the differences (which are held up as the “most interesting” aspect of video games). While I agree that a focus on “medium specificity” can be fruitful and generative, I also think that we should not simply abandon an amazing amount of sophisticated work on media forms such as television and film. Of course, one must not simply and unreflectively port the older work into a new field, but ignoring the older work would be an unfortunate mistake. (Incidentally, this was a complaint in Richard Bartle’s keynote address where he expressed dismay that people working on virtual worlds and MMOs today were ignoring early research on the subject.) For example, in terms of Diner Dash and time management games, Tanya Modleski’s essay “The Rhythms of Reception: Daytime Television and Women’s Work” is a valuable resource for seeing how a previous televisual form (i.e. soap operas and game shows) coupled with the temporal form of women’s work within the home. Casual, time management games also enact a similar coupling in terms of the leisure time of many contemporary women; while soap operas address women in a particular spatial location (the home), casual games address individuals (especially women) in temporal locations. That is, casual games do not necessarily address people within particular spaces because they can be played in a variety of locations–at home, in the office, on the train or bus, in the park outside, etc.. Yet, the play of casual games is linked to the “temporal spaces” of fragmented leisure that are snatched from one’s busy day–thus fitting into the contemporary, temporal reality of many women. (Many studies have shown how women’s leisure time is more fragmented, harried, interrupted, etc. than men’s more uncontaminated leisure.) Anyway, my point being that this earlier work on soaps can help to illuminate the “Rhythms of Reception of Casual Games.” Here, media forms (video games, television, etc.) are conditioned by social forces; the structures of these forms are determined by larger economic/social forces which often extend forms of gendered domination. Unpacking both the gameplay and representational elements of time management games addressed to women will reveal how these games are navigating these social determinants.

Let me say upfront that I am mostly a fan of Alex Galloway’s work & I am particularly impressed by the political projects he and his collaborators produce. Yet, on the theoretical side (and especially in relation to video games) I hesitate when I read some of his positions and arguments.

One thing that has always nagged me was the dichotomy of ideology critique and what he calls informatic critique–the former occurring in a vertical, allegorical fashion based on a depth model of interpretation and the latter being horizontal, a process of scanning the surface of a text, and largely in relation to his previous work on the flexible structures of protocol through which control is asserted.

Of course, the attack on the depth model of interpretation is a primary facet of postmodernist thinking, but in (Marxist) authors such as Jameson, Eagleton, Perry Anderson, and even Linda Hutcheon (to some extent) the abandonment of ideology critique is a frightening symptom of critical thought. Indeed, part of Jameson’s critique of postmodernism is that signs are detached from reference, from “deep” history, where signifiers circulate unattached to anything “below” them such as signifieds, or god forbid, an anchor of reality. Thus, in postmodernism everything is upfront and out in the open; nothing is hidden; interpretation does not excavate deeper meanings let alone the political unconscious.

In terms of video games, this is exactly the approach Galloway takes to games in his chapter of Gaming called “Allegories of Control.” He will say things like, video games present their politics in “relatively unmediated form” (an abandonment of the key Marxist concept of mediation?); or,  games are “politically transparent;” or, a longer example:

“As I have alluded to in Jameson, the depth model in traditional allegorical interpretation is a sublimation of the separation felt by the viewer between his or her experience of consuming the media and the potentially liberating political value of that media. But video games abandon this dissatisfying model of deferral, epitomizing instead the flatness of the control allegory by unifying the act of playing the game with an immediate political experience. In other words, The Sims is a game that delivers its own political critique up front as part of the gameplay. There is no need for the critic to unpack the game later.”

Whereas Civilization for Galloway acts as a transparent surface display of the totality of informatic control - its interlocking algorithms, the flexibility of various paramaters that players can investigate, adjust, and change - The Sims is a direct display “of life lived as an algorithm.” It’s all there right before us in these games which act as indexes to the form of control and societal structures–postmodernist, post-industrial, informatic (call it what you will)–that exists around us. One doesn’t need to unpack how Civilization represents history, because it is right there in the mirror before us–as mathematical, informatic models which ultimately act as the erasure of history itself. One does not need to deeply interpret The Sims because it is right there before us as “an immediate political experience:” the revealing of our contemporary lives as insipid, repetitive, algorithmic tasks as we play the game itself.  I actually have no qualms with these analyses, they point back to the structures of control (stemming from Deleuze) that Galloway has extrapolated in his work on protocol. But this sense of immediacy of the political, a privileging of surface over depth, seems like a unnecessary (postmodern) annihilation of ideology and the work of interpretation needed to think through it, which, in my opinion, still remains an important political task. In fact, perhaps a task I am trying to do right now in seeing through how Galloway’s notion of “informatic critique” is working ideologically itself.

Continue Reading »

My original intent in starting this blog was to provide a public place for thinking through my dissertation, for providing a salvage yard of sorts where I could place some of my current thoughts–odds and ends which might prove useful or not for the dissertation. Hopefully they will also be useful for others interested in thinking critically and theoretically about video games. I plan on posting more regularly in the future.

So, with that said, this first post about games arises from a recent re-reading of Espen Aarseth’s “Genre Trouble“  a key text in the ludologist vs. narratologist debates (as they have unfortunately become to be known). In particular the following quote spurred my thoughts:

Games are not “textual” or at least not primarily textual: where is the text in chess? We might say that the rules of chess constitute its “text,” but there is no recitation of the rules during gameplay, so that would reduce the textuality of chess to a subtextuality or a paratextuality. A central “text” does not exist — merely context. Any game consists of three aspects: (1) rules, (2) a material/semiotic system (a gameworld), and (3) gameplay (the events resulting from application of the rules to the gameworld). Of these three, the semiotic system is the most coincidental to the game. As the Danish theorist and game designer Jesper Juul has pointed out (Juul 2001b), games are eminently themeable: you can play chess with some rocks in the mud, or with pieces that look like the Simpson family rather than kings and queens. It would still be the same game. The “royal” theme of the traditional pieces is all but irrelevant to our understanding of chess. Likewise, the dimensions of Lara Croft’s body, already analyzed to death by film theorists, are irrelevant to me as a player, because a different-looking body would not make me play differently. When I play, I don’t even see her body, but see through it and past it.

Thus, game studies would ideally focus on the rules and gameplay–though the latter would seemingly require some analysis of representation or the “semiotic system” given that gameplay emerges within the relationship between gameworld and rules. Though the example of Lara Croft is immediately intriguing (and has caught the eye of many others) what leap into my mind upon this rereading was the dismissal of semiotics and the use of the chess example, given that Ferdinand Saussure (founder of semiology) uses practically the same chess example to illustrate his rationale concerning the inauguration of semiotics. Of course, Aarseth’s use of the word “semiotic” is really a codeword for narratives and visual representations which frame the game system within a gameworld; less a reference to actual semiotics (and Saussure for that matter), the word is intended to indicate a certain brand of theory – perhaps of the poststructuralist flavor – and practitioners of this theory who mindlessly port their training (developed through the study of literature or media such as film and television) to the field of game studies. (Incidentally, Aarseth explicitly denies the privileged usefulness of semiotics proper to the study of electronic texts in his book Cybertexts). Nevertheless, Aarseth’s choice to frame the other of game studies as semiotics is intriguing given that the methods of the ludologists to create a stable foundation for game studies share traits with Ferdinand Saussure’s attempt to ground the field of semiology. Indeed, Saussure claims that “language must, to put it correctly, be studied in itself; heretofore language has almost always been studied in connection with something else, from other viewpoints.” If one replaces “language” with “games” one arrives at Aarseth’s basic qualms concerning the state of game studies and the unreflective porting of theories derived from literature & film to games. But, let’s look at the chess examples Saussure uses.

Continue Reading »

Returned home a few days ago from a wonderful trip to Providence for the opening of the Inappropriate Covers exhibition I co-curated with Justin Katko. The opening was held on April 10th and a few days before we organized a film screening for The Magic Lantern at the Cable Car Cinema. The screening went quite well with films such as a selection from the Lossless series by Rebecca Baron and Doug Goodwin (we screened #3 and #5), Robert Arnold’s “Morphology of Desire,” Matthew Suib’s excellent work “COCKED,” and other videos. Here’s a description of the films we screened.

The opening for the exhibition was wonderful with Stephanie Syjuco giving an excellent and “appropriate” artist talk; we exhibited her piece “Body Double.” Other artists in attendance were L. Amelia Raley (showing “I should have never ever ever did those things”) and Ted Riederer (showing “The Resurrectionists”).

From the press release: “Inappropriate Covers includes multimedia works by 11 established and emerging artists, chosen for the aesthetic tensions they generate through acts of appropriation, reconfiguration, and erasure. Works in the exhibition range from the refined to the outrageous, according to JoAnn Conklin, director of the Bell Gallery. Jim Campbell’s elegant sculpture muses on memory and loss: the artist’s own heartbeat and breath sets the frequency of a layer of fog that appears on a glass, covering and uncovering photographs of his parents. At the other end of the spectrum is Kelly Heaton’s Live Pelt (The Surrogate). Heaton refers to the cloak, made from 64 used Tickle Me Elmo dolls purchased on E-bay, as her “substitute lover.”  In addition to Campbell and Heaton, artists participating in the exhibition are Brian Dettmer, Kenneth Goldsmith, Christian Marclay, L. Amelia Raley, Ted Riederer, Brian Kim Stefans, Stephanie Syjuco, John Oswald, and Mark Wallinger.”

Inappropriate Covers @ The David Winton Bell Gallery, Brown University. Running until May 29, 2009:

A vlog about Inappropriate Covers made by Julie Levin-Russo for HASTAC:

Press Release from Brown University:

More Text, from The Brown Daily Herald & Yankee Magazine.

Continue Reading »

A few weeks ago the second volume of Transformative Works and Cultures went online. The issue is called “Games as Transformative Works” and contains a short article of mine: “Intrinsic motivation: flOw, video games, and participatory culture.” The article was published in their “Symposium” section, a space intended for shorter pieces that address both the academic community and general public. The ideas in the piece stem from the first chapter of my dissertation which contains a larger examination of Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow in relation to video games (but also in relation to Raymond Williams’ concept of televisual flow). The chapter attempts to fill a gap in game scholarship which often mentions Csikszentmihalyi & flow, but rarely with a critical eye. The article in TWC doesn’t go into much depth in the theoretical discussion of “flow,” but instead attempts to draw a relationship between the (sometimes) intrinsic motivation of modding and Csikszentmihalyi’s notion of “intrinsic motivation” which is attached to flow activities such as, potentially, video games. The gist being that at some point - when the player reaches a skill level where the game is no longer (or less) challenging - modification might be a choice to continue the “flow experience” cultivated in the game; thus, the intrinsic motivation of playing the game overflows into the immaterial labor of work (often to the material profit of others, not necessarily the modder). Anyway, take a look if you’re interested. There’s a brief discussion of the game flOw in relation to World of Warcraft actually… The rest of the collection looks fascinating as well, though I have only been able to read a few articles as of yet.