The aesthetics of flow and the aesthetics of catharsis
In this piece Bolter focuses on two key terms throughout the paper, the aesthetics of flow and catharsis. Flow can be summarized as experiences that engage the viewer on some level of interactivity, such as playing video games, scrolling through a twitter feed or playing a sport, flow offers the individual a level of control. Catharsis is the emotional identification you feel with a character in a film or television series. Catharsis aims at the achievement of a desired emotional state, whereas the state of flow wants to continue forever, with minor variations in the intensity of involvement. While the two aesthetics are fundamentally different, Bolter makes the point that the two are often used together saying digital culture hybridizes forms easily and eagerly. An example of flow and catharsis in the same experience would be the cut scenes in a video game that intend to provoke an emotional identification with the character you are controlling. The combination of both is also prevalent in television. Global TV is currently advertising the new episode of Hawaii Five-o as an episode where viewers will be able to vote via text message the outcome of an episode based on a variety of scenes the show pre-taped. Bolter explains that is also not only the content itself that fits into these two aesthetics or a combination of both, it is also how the content is consumed, PVR, channel surfing, on demand television and movies are on some level considered flow because of the repetitive control the user has.
The question I found the most intriguing in this article was “Is catharsis still possible in digital media forms”. I would like to tweak the question slightly and ask specifically is catharsis possible in a digital medium, such as videogames, in the way Steven Spielberg suggested was it possible for a person to cry over an event in a video game. My reaction is catharsis, such as crying as a result of an event in a videogame, is that it is only possible if you accurately replace or mimic the environment of the user. Currently there is a separation of the viewer from the environment due to the limitations of real-time rendering and projection technologies. These limitations constantly remind us we are indeed watching a computer render, don’t forget it, and therefore it has always been emotionally difficult to identify with a character in a videogame. If we could forget that we were interacting with non-organics, therefore have vastly superior computing technology, then yes it would likely be possible to emotionally identify with a character and thus make catharsis possible in a digital medium such as videogames.
However the aesthetics of flow and catharsis are much broader than videogames as Janet Murray’s states, the computer constitutes the next great narrative medium, after drama, the novel and cinema. Because it is “participatory” and “procedural,” the digital medium makes possible a new form of storytelling. In a novel or a film, the reader or viewer can be intimately involved in the story, but she cannot intervene to affect the outcome”.
Murray’s claims lead to my three questions leading back to “Is catharsis still possible in digital media forms?”
1. If the viewer has the ability to intervene and affect the outcome, the story changes and thus so does the emotional identification. Part of what creates the emotional identification is the manipulation, it is not having the choice to tell the character what to do, it is watching the character be human and make mistakes that creates this identification and thus catharsis. How does having the ability to affect the outcome alter the experience? Negatively or positively?
2. Is catharsis possible with non-traditional forms of digital story telling? It is easy to speculate using the video game model, so is it possible to have emotional identification with something like twitter? Catharsis in flow?
3. My third question inverts the discussion, is the process of watching multiple episodes of a single television series in one sitting an example of catharsis or flow?
Matt K
Matthew,
Hilarious! I tried to imagine someone sitting in front of a television for hours, watching a single show. Homer Simpson came to my mind as the perfect example of that kind of TV consumption. Then, I realized that I’m even a better example – I watch The Simpsons for hours, sometimes, 10 episodes in a row. So, if I were to answer your question – I am experiencing both ‘catharsis’ and ‘flow’ in that situation. When I say this, I am actually not joking. Here is how I see it.
The most important thing, related to my ‘10 Simpsons episode in a row’ case is that I’m watching them on my laptop, which means – I pause, i skip, I take a break, I google and so on. To add one more thing to the equation, I already know the narrative of most of the episodes, which means that I am actually manipulating my viewing experience. In other words – to cut the long story short – without even watching the full episode, I am able to experience the ‘cathartic’ element of the narrative because I have the story already deeply incorporated into my mind (The Simpsons show is actually a good example of Bolter’s ‘catharsis’, because it uses the ‘Syd Field’ storytelling pattern) and at the same time, I experience the ‘flow’ because I manipulate the content by ‘performing’ my viewing experience – choosing the episodes, taking breaks, skipping and so on.
Which raises another question – How would the concepts of ‘catharsis’ and ‘flow’ find their place in the ‘Youtube funniest videos browsing’ setting, for example? The spectator constructs his own narrative by choosing the content, he/she is able to spend hours browsing through the unfamiliar, and eventually experience the ‘emotional climax’ when finding the right video that makes him/her laugh the most.
Radojka
Hey Matthew,
You pose some interesting questions that I have tried to grapple with myself. In regard to your first question, I think the act of contemplation is central to cathartic experiences. Narrative films encourage the spectator to engage in the act of contemplation: to become absorbed in the images on screen for a lengthy duration and derive meaning from the emotional involvement induced by the film experience. By intervening in the process of digital media forms, the spectator comes to engage in the experience through direct perception rather than conceptual processing. This is evidenced in the tactile dimensions of digital media such as videogames, cellphones, tablets and the internet that provide the user with a level of control through a haptic component (i.e- controller, mouse, screen, etc.). Therefore, what I’m suggesting is that the active participation of the user in digital media forms limits the opportunity for a cathartic experience by placing precedence of physical involvement over emotional involvement.
Question 1: it seems to me that the ability to change the outcome of a story is not related to the quality of our experience. For instance, the DVD releases with alternative ending do provide different endings but the quality of the overall story (no matter the ending), the quality of the cinematography, acting, light, and storytelling in the film is very much dependent on the skill of the screenwriter, director, actors and so forth. The ability to alter the outcome makes a story more complicated, meaning more effort is required to made a good story with 5 endings, yet our type of experience is very much dependent on the storytelling skills and its implementation.