Future Cinema

4 Questions – Jagoda continued, ARGs

Hi all,

What a wild and crazy world ARGs turned out to be! Looking forward to talking about the Jejune Institute and linking some of these ideas to cinema.

Questions!

1. As I’ve fought with the word “immersion” through this whole semester, very much trying to resist the siren call of the Myth of Total Immersion, ARGs have given something new to think about: more so than the mediated AR and VR experiences from earlier in the semester, an ARG’s sense of immersion is not about “teleporting” or “escaping,” to a different (virtual) place, but rather about completely blurring the “game space” and “real space” of its players. What are some of the positives and negatives about this boundless and limitless and edgeless sense of immersion? What happens to a game, or cinematic experience, when it has no end and/or acts of containment? How does it play with a typical game’s notion of “attention” and “focus”?

2. How does an ARG’s sense of embodiment in these immersive game-worlds differ than that of an AR or VR experience? The cinema experience? I’m thinking here of the “interface” of these experience – the site where the player or viewer interacts with the game. In cinema, AR and VR, the screen is typically the main interface, with further inputs like controllers, gloves etc. However, in ARGs, there is no interface, or perhaps a series of interlocking interfaces. Is the body of an ARG participant in constant interface?

3. A number of the ARGs that are given as examples are built upon “fan experiences” of previously created content or as promotional experiments for commercial products. While we are going to be looking at smaller scale ARGs that doesn’t rely on the centralized, capitalistic systems that Antropy so fears in AAA video game development, why do you think so many of the successful ARGs seem to have some content to some previously established world/continuity? I’m thinking here about Jadoga’s insistence, built on Wark’s, that “art produces or reconfigures desire” that depends on “uncertainty” and a “surrender of control” (215). I might tie this to messages boards, in particular for an earlier pre-Twttier show like Lost.

4. What role do you think conspiracy plays in ARGs? It seems like a number rely on the conspiratorial tropes in their content, but in what ways might the notions of hidden networks of secret power be essential to the gameplay (the form) of the game? With their focus on collective play and collective action, what role does being social play in conspiracies and in what positive and negative ways does an ARG leverage that? I think there is something more, unformed in my thoughts right now, about being the select group “in the know” and the power that comes with that…

Jagoda Questions and Links to Coverage on Derren Brown

1. In chapter one, Jagoda cites Jean-François Lyotard (my Frankenstein dinner guest) in a passage citing his view that dominant notions of modern art seek to “present the fact that the unpresentable exists,” and also mentions Joseph Tabbi’s claim of a shift from a theological/artistic order to one dominated by increasingly unknowable technological and corporate networks that appear.  For Jagoda, a network sublime emerges directly from such postmodern antecedents and is most evident in those ubiquitous network visualizations that represent big-data outputs (using an Instagram visualization network as an example).

This is an interesting theoretical evolution, one that I am curious about others’ thoughts on.  It’s been about twenty years since Lyotard’s death, and there has been considerable evolution in numerous pathways since then.  As with his reference to Ranciere’s Dissensus, I was also hoping that Jagoda would return to further engage with Lyotard later in the book, but both figures are only mentioned in the introductory commentaries.

Without a detailed exploration here, do we agree that the network sublime which Jagoda articulates is a ‘direct antecedent,’ or has it taken a type of detour or conceptual leap here?  Despite the criticisms leveled at The Postmodern Condition (some even by Lyotard himself), I feel that certain aspects are relevant in our age of networks, but to what extent is a challenging proposition to articulate.

2. Jagoda states:

“The art critic Nicolas Bourriaud theorizes art beginning in the 1990s as taking on “relational aesthetics” that include interactive and networked components. Several decades before this moment, however, artists were already beginning to explore similar concepts. Members of the post– World War II avant- garde, including John Cage, Nam June Paik, and Wolf Vostell, as well as members of the Situationist International, were experimenting with “intermedia” production and network thought in the 1950s.”

This is an interesting point as some might place the divide here as essentially between the “high-tech” and the “low-tech.”  While figures such as Cage have exterted a wide net of influence, not all theorists would situate his work in this manner.  Does this distinction matter?  How much of a role does the technical aspect play when tracing such historical trajectories of networks?

3. Jagoda cites the film, The Game, and other forms of ARGs which reminded me of NetFlix’s recently streamed specials with Derren Brown (an illusionist and mentalist), who through an elaborate setup of actors, plotlines, and means of production, sets up unknowing participants to engage in a complex game without their knowledge (they are purposely misled to the actual premise of their involvement).  Notably, he uses actors working through elaborate plotlines to coherence the participants to push an actor off a roof (who secretly lands on a crash pad), or in another episode, Brown’s team convinces an anti-immigration Trump supporter to take a bullet for an undocumented man being harassed by a racist gang of bikers in the desert.

Obviously, many have questioned the ethics behind such deceptive forms of entertainment, but where do we draw the line in today’s age?  Is it possible to do so objectively?  In interactive roleplaying media and games, there will often be elements of surprise or twists in narrative, but many would contend that Brown has taken this beyond any normalized boundaries.

4. Jagoda’s emphasis on ambivalence is interesting, and is also an area that I think could have returned to some of Lyotard’s thought, notably his theory of the differend. While I understand his premise for articulating a move towards ambivalence, I also question if we have shifted to greater polarization, even since the recent publication of this book. Is ambivalence relevant in practice, or is such a conception more theoretical in natiue?

Also, for those interested, here are a couple articles which explore the controversial nature of Derren Brown’s work:

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/the-push-netflix-review-ending-derren-brown-twist-1201933412/

https://www.bustle.com/p/how-real-is-sacrifice-the-new-derren-brown-netflix-special-doesnt-play-it-safe-12256108

Jagoda Q’s

1. Jagoda analyzes numerous linear narratives that frame networks. Here, he claims that most 20th century literature, especially in sci-fi, created “dystopian” visions of networks. Are there any examples of narratives in this period that frame networks in a positive light? Are there any futuristic texts that look forward to the future, rather than dread its arrival?

2. Jagoda says, “networks may make individuals obsolete or irrelevant.” Is this something we should potentially embrace? Is this something we might need?

3. Jagoda posits that, “total authorial management may inform certain digital games, but are not characteristic of the art form,” because there is not a clear link between storytelling and games. Do games, or films or comics or paintings, need to have a “story” to be considered “authored? If games are art but do not need “total authorial management”, what does this say about games as art?

4. For Jadoga, there is a distinction between single-player and multi-player games. He agrees with McKenzie Wark when Wark says, “perhaps the single-player game will become an anachronism, superseded by multi-player worlds.” But what is the distinction between “single” and “multi”-player worlds? If we remember Isbister’s book, players can have similar emotional reactions to AI controlled, non-playable characters (NPCs) as they might have to real people. This begs the question: are we really even playing “alone” when we play single-player games? If we relate and avatars and NPCs in tangible ways, how does this complicate said distinction?

Questions on Jagoda + Brakhage

1. Jagoda points to network aesthetics as having the potential of invoking the sublime. This reminded me of our conversation about No Man’s Sky, and the feeling of awe inspired both by scenery and the AI. Has anyone had any other experiences of the technological sublime?

2. Did anyone develop a working definition of “network” while reading Network Aesthetics? I find that I am struggling to define it for myself. If networks can refer to such a wide variety of social, societal, historical, spatial, etc… structures, can almost anything with a structure be a network? Is that the point?

3. Are Stan Brakhage’s painted films immersive? Or is the idea of “closed eye vision” (implying a look inside oneself) opposed to immersion?

4. Another Brakhage question: From a curational/programming perspective, how did we feel about the format of the screening? Would you have benefited from contextualizing info–short introductions, etc– between each film? Or was it beneficial to not over-intellectualize the content, and experience it all as one onslaught? How might more context foster or break immersion?

Network Aesthetics & Brakhage

1. Jagoda makes the distinction between the human and nonhuman dimensions of networks. What constitutes this nonhuman side of network? Is it even possible to have a purely nonhuman dimension of network? Could you please elaborate on this dichotomy?
2. I do not see the importance of recognizing such films as a distinct genre or subgenre, but fiction films such as Love Actually, Traffic, and Nashville are categorized by Jagoda and critics as “criss-crossers” or “multiprotagonist films.” Does this apply to documentaries such as Science Fair and Mad Hot Ballroom? Can documentaries be seen in the same light?
3. Can we attribute the reason why Journey Stories stand out in terms of its content and praise of the game compared to other game forums to the game’s aesthetics and style which appeals to a certain crowd or does the game truly possess transformative powers? I am a bit skeptical since the player’s account which Jagoda includes in Chapter 4, hints at depression and escapism: “I simply had nothing else to do…it felt like that was exactly where I was supposed to be…because my terrible day had put me in a fragile, emotional state already.” What do you think?
4. I have immense respect for Brakhage and his craft, but I simply could not sit through the entire screening of his Painted Films. ‘Poetic’ work does not equate to soothing or fluid visuals, but I found his films to be violent in its delivery and disconnected. Filmmaker, Nathaniel Dorsky, speaks of Brakhage’s films as “a body of silent work of fragile beauty,” “a poetic exploration near the pinpoint of mind where light, spirit, and body come upon one another.” My experience was that of headache, discomfort, and unpleasantness. Am I the only one who felt this way?

“Network Aesthetics” Questions

Hello everyone. Excited for our class this evening. Wanted to briefly touch on a few questions I had when I found myself reading through as much of Jagoda’s Network Aestheticsas I could. I found it to be a bit of a dense read, and one filled with numerous examples that I had minimal experience with previously.

1.)  Jagoda briefly references Don DeLillo’s Underworldas an example of a text which emphasizes network aesthetics, thought the interconnectivity of characters and events. Can you think of any examples of such work in other forms such as films, plays, video games, and the like? What was it like experiencing those stories in such a manner?

2.)  Jagoda discusses the ways that networks have moved into our language to describe fluid and indecipherable things, such as the term “terrorist network.” In what ways does the term “terrorist network,” play on technophobic fears, as well as misunderstandings of networks as well? What would be a possible alternative to the term “terrorist network?”

3.)  Jagoda introduces a new concept titled “network realism,” focusing on marrying his understandings of networks with pre-established notions of realism in art. Is it possible to do the same with other artistic movements, for example, could a “network surrealism” be possible? Would such a concept be nightmarish, or fascinating?

4.)  The section on networked games seems to touch on previously explored territory regarding developments in gaming and the supposed importance playing digital games with others. Online gaming has thus grown into a phenomenon explored by Jagoda within Network Aesthetics. In what capacity has the rise of digital gaming networks changed the textual content of games both for the better, and for the worse? Is it possible that online play has hindered the proliferation of the diversity of game possibilities more than it has helped? Furthermore, consider the changes in gaming culture and acceptance afforded by online play. Did the rise of online networks legitimize gaming in unforeseen ways?

Brakhage, Anthropy & Jagoda – So many things!

Hi all!

I’m late on last week’s questions, but on time for this week!

First, Brakhage:

What a screening last week…! Such a combination of interesting, arresting, tedious, trying, upsetting, beautiful, thought-provoking and more. The silence; the sitting in a blackbox rather than able to move around in a gallery; and the strobing quality of colours… I went home in something of a daze, unsure what I was feeling. The subway felt particularly strange following the screening. As did talking to my partner. I felt removed and in another world. Initially (and throughout the screening) I thought immersion was totally impossible – a kind of Brechtian distanciation that made me continually aware of the screen, the room we were in, the people around me, my body and all the thoughts running through me. And then after the screening, given that dazed-type feeling I experienced, I wondered if maybe I was wrong. Maybe there was something wholly immersive about that experience?

Anthropy:

So, the questions people asked are awesome. I feel like lots of ground has already been covered. I’m going to try avoiding repetition and share a couple questions that are still lingering/standing out to me as of today.

1. I found really interesting and exciting the way Anthropy homed in on the rules/constraints parts of games. As compared with Ibister who focused much more on affect, Anthropy (when looking at what games do) focused more on the constraints and resulting interaction. What are the parallels and differences between Anthropy and Ibister in terms of how they frame discussions and impact of making and playing games?

2. In Chapter 7, Anthropy offers a breakdown on how to build a game. A methodology for crafting. Did anyone have thoughts on this? I’m very interested in the “dramaturgy” of interactive art making, and curious about different models of/for craft. I found this interesting and useful, but curious about other people’s thoughts/input?

Jagoda:

1. Does anyone else wish we had another week on this book? I am not entirely finished yet, and am not enjoying zooming through this read. There is so much here! Anyone else feel that way too???? I feel this question and the ones that follow are very cursory and underformed. Ack!

2. I love this question offered by Jagoda early in the book: “How can we compare social objects in a world where most such objects, whether nations, ideas, technologies and economies, seem deeply interconnected?” — How do you respond to this? And then, as a counterpoint, in what ways have networks and our networked times made more visible the ways that nations, ideas, technologies and economies have long been deeply interconnected (i.e. it is not the networked age itself that has caused this interconnection — at least very least at the level of the State, though arguably not only at the level of State(s) — but rather the digital networking we now access has enabled this interconnection to be more visible)? And a further counterpoint, in what ways, despite the interconnection now possible, in what ways are nations, ideas, technologies and economies still disconnected?

3. Jagoda writes: “Limits are, after all, not merely markers of inadequacy but parameters that enable innovation and experimentation. A creative form’s constraints also mark the social limits and historical horizons of the human world from which it issues.” I wanted to note this passage, in part, because of the earlier point I was bringing up about the Anthropy reading, and the ways she discusses games/game design as (human and interface) interactions with/between rules and constraints. I’m not entirely sure what my question is here, but I’m curious about this. As a maker, I tend to agree wholeheartedly about what constraints offer. That they are necessarily places of innovation and experimentation. I’m curious what other threads and connections are here?

4. “… while networks (whether they take the form of metaphors, figures, visualizations, or infrastructures) can help apprehend various types of complexity, they are nonetheless grounded in the scientific, political, social, and aesthetic preferences of our time.” What is your take on the position that while networks seem, at this time, to be the encompassing and universal form that “explain(s) everything”… that rather, this view is rooted in our current time? And, then in contrast, is the tree really the lasting metaphor connecting all times? Yes, rhizomes, Deleuze and Guattari, yes. But even then, aren’t we still talking trees?

5. Let’s take up the questions Jagoda puts to us:

• “If so many things and relationships are figured as networks, what is not a network?”
• “If so much can be treated as interconnected, does anything escape connectivity?”
• “…what comes after networks?”
• “…if a network points toward particular logics and qualities of relation in our time, what others might we envision in the future?”

SO MUCH! My brain!!!!!!!

Jagoda – Network Aesthetics Questions

Hi All – here are some thoughts I had while reading.

1. The formation of gestalt aesthetics are mentioned frequently in the section that focused upon maximalist novels, in which nodes of the network do not see the whole picture, but act as process and information relays for the entirety. Jagoda later references Deleuze’s concept of “societies of control”, in which the totality of our environment is under a system enacting control, inseparable from the perceivably enclosed structures in our society (eg. school, work, prison, family, etc.). Deleuze describes this as a modulation of control between these structures rather than discrete molds of control present in each of these structures. Are there parallels that can be drawn between our lived experience in a networked society where access to information can be obscured and privileged to few as a “node”?

2. Are the features and considerations of maximal novels able to translate to a cinematic context without losing resolution of detail? Would long form media like serialized television be necessary to convey the same information?

3. Do non-linear/multilinear experiences like network games result in more compelling networked structures do to agency within the system? Does this agency afford better linkage to representational “histories of the present” even within fictitious narratives?

4. Jagoda poses a question from Arjun Appadurai: “How can we compare social objects in a world where most such objects whether nations, ideas, technologies, and economies seem deeply connected?”. Is a solution to this problem to compare the relative neighbours of object nodes rather than the connected objects themselves or would this loose resolution of context for the objects?

4 questions Patrick Jagoda – Network Aesthetics

A lot to talk about in this book! Some questions I’m working through.

1.
After being defeated by Deep Blue, Gary Kasparov, former World Chess Champion, played a far lesser known game, now known as Kasparov Versus the World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World), in which Kasparov played a crowd-sourced team comprised of the world, via the Internet. This is in many ways similar to Twitch plays Pokemon that Jagoda mentions on page 24. Are these “Democracy Mode” games a ways in which we escape and/or resist the sort of toxic networks that Jagoda imagines on page 18, based in surveillance, capitalism and terror? I am thinking through how every network device I use enabled my own surveillance and contributes to capitalism in no small way, and so I’m curious if there are ways to be within these networks while also resisting them, and/or using their tools to reveal and exploit ruptures within the notion of games as “monolithic structures” (146).

2.
In “AIDS and its Metaphors” (1988), Sontag dedicates space to paralleling the perception and metaphoric treatment of AIDS, and illness at large, to the proliferation of computer viruses just beginning to take hold; in fact, this conflation of illness and cyberspace was also present in one of the earliest email scams was wherein users were sent an email informing them that they had AIDS infecting the computer with fake invoices to be paid to companies in Panama. Why do you think the idea of the viral, and the fear of the virus was, and continues to be such a persistent metaphor in our contemporary networked world? How is a virus different than a glitch or accident (page 78, 100) or the types of productive disruption Jagoda sees in games like Between (164)? What is it about a virus’s characteristics that lends it this power and how might we identify and resist the, often false and inflammatory alarms, that metaphors of virus raise (thinking of foreigners “infecting” homelands, for example)

3.
On page 146, Jadoga quotes Mackenzie Wark in explaining that the single-player stand-alone game may eventually be an “orphaned form” similar to silent cinema. The most obvious difference then between silent cinema and contemporary cinema is the absence of sound, and while we know that silent cinema was never truly silent, Wark’s comparison seems to imply that it is an entirely different sensory experience to play alone versus playing together. If this is true (and it might not be!), what are the “senses” that a player “gains” access to by playing in a network as opposed to alone? Is it that certain senses are heightened? Do we expand our sensoriums to gain access to senses, or sensations, we can’t have alone?

4.
Whereas Vivian Sobchack discusses the positive “non-knowing” that the body makes sense with (i.e. generates its own knowledge of the world through sensory reactions), Proctor is pointed to as highlighting “Agnotology” (the study of ignorance) on page 58 wherein networks create a “layered ignorance”. Similarly, Jagoda points to “dark play” wherein players in games don’t know that they are playing, as an exciting and essential component to ARGs (192); as well, Jagoda also points to the not-knowing that arrises from playing Between, wherein the two players work collaboratively without knowing what the other is doing or saying. When designing or making, what role does “not-knowing” play, in terms of sensual experience, willfully and unwillfull ignorance, miscommunication etc? If mastery and skill is essential to “flow” as discussed previously in other texts, what does ignorance and not-knowing do to and for an audience, player, user?

Dun Dun Dun…

First smart glasses retail store!

https://venturebeat.com/2018/11/13/north-formerly-thalmic-labs-opens-its-first-focals-smart-glasses-retail-stores/