Future Cinema

More Anthropy Questions

Thoughts on Brakhage and Anthropy Questions

Hello Everyone,

I really enjoyed the Stan Brakhage film last night.  It was definitely a unique experience in terms of aesthetic experience.  As I was mentioning last night, I found the first five or ten minutes somewhat jarring in an auditory sense due to the silence and my physical relationship to it, but I actually felt that the lack of sound proved to make the visuals more effective as a soundtrack would have possibly inadvertently shaped the experience in unintended ways, and additionally, it would have also resigned the work significantly to given period.   I often cite Cage, but could help doing so once again last night, comparing the silence and visuals to his description of a visit to Harvard’s anachoric chamber, where the soundproof nature of the room led him to hear certain bodily functions.  I felt that the ambient nature sonically and the Brakhage visuals definitely complemented each other in an almost mesmerizing fashion.

1. I was rather impressed that Anthropy mentioned my favourite game as a child, Another World, which was essentially conceived, designed, and programmed by Eric Chahi.  I felt that even though this game was originally released in 1992, it was perhaps a perfect example of why individual creative efforts can be much more impactful than large-scale impersonal ones.  When Chahi designed the game, he stated that his aim was to move away from interactions based on merely attaining numerical scores, and engage the player to actually ‘feel.’  As a visual artist, he tried to evoke his own personal feelings of loneliness and isolation through mysterious surreal settings in a dark dystopian world that little is known about to the player.  With this stated, his use of rotoscoping produced realism in movement, but he wanted the limited detail in polygon visuals to invoke inner imagination.

Another item that impressed me about this game was the amount of effort put into the soundtrack and sound effects which utilized everything from synthesized elements to samples of dot matrix printers.  For anyone interested, here is a mini documentary featuring Chahi and the game’s music composer, Jean-François Freitas, discussing how they developed the project together (If you go to YouTube’s settings, you can also translate the commentary into English).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0gv2bV9ok4

Eric Chahi and Jean-François Freitas Documentary

With my description above, are successes such as Chahi’s a one-off, notably in our modern context?  Can a single developer still work such as Chachi did and create something this personal that will have wide-ranging success, or is such individuality now an attribute relegated to small niche markets?

2. Anthropy described how greater diversity is needed in the development of gaming, which is commendable, but what is the best avenue to implement such a shift in very old entrenched practices?  A number of years back when I wrote for an LGBTQ e-zine, I remember interviewing an artist that had been part of Girls Rock Camp, which is a program designed to empower young female musicians to engage in the male-dominated genre of rock music.  She spoke quite positively of the experience.  Would similar initiatives be effective in the world or programming to bring greater diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity?

3. Anthropy praises the ability of platforms such as YouTube to open the floodgates of artistic expression, which reminds me of Shirkey’s comparison I mentioned earlier which equates social media as a modern type of Gutenberg press.  Some would argue that in any instance ‘voices and choices’ is a positive notion, but navigating through masses of low-quality content can also potentially dilute the ability of great projects to surface to their intended audiences.  Is the modern ease of project distribution an inherently positive development, or should we have certain reservations about this unfettered ease of dissemination?

4. I like Anthropy’s emphasis on games telling stories, but I also question how much certain mass audiences value the art of storytelling, especially less generic narratives.   At the risk of certain projects becoming incredibly esoteric in nature, should programmers attempt to strike a balance between individualism and accessibility, or is this a compromise which should be avoided in the ultimate pursuit of artistic integrity.

Anthropy Questions

Hey All,

I really enjoyed seeing the Painted Films last night! My questions are relatively similar to the discussion points brought up during our discussion before the screening.

1. Anthropy emphasizes the importance of having spaces and platforms where the creation of games is solely an endeavor of expression and a journey of process, rather than products for financial gain. This could be challenged by her later acceptance of modding/extensions of other games as being valuable to a creative process as part of the work has been already completed and is ready to be used. Is the idea of free and untethered creation and expression of personal experience contradicted by the employment of these systems that have been developed through the lens of another’s world-view/experience?

2. There have been considerable improvements in distribution, creation tech and tools, and development hubs for indie games since Anthropy’s book was released in 2012, including greater use of engines like Unity and Unreal. In what ways does this mirror the proliferation of capable and portable equipment within the film industry?

3. Is Anthropy’s goal of having an environment in gaming where anyone has a chance to express their story achievable? At what point does the ability to create without prior learning change from meaningful expression within a medium to ignorance of procedure and function of the medium? Is it necessary for one to obtain an element of literacy prior to experimentation and at what granularity is it deemed satisfactory?

4. Is there an area within future cinema for zine-like creation and distribution? Are the toolkits allowing for quick VR or AR experiences accessible financially and able to be understood without instruction?

Questions inspired by Anthropy’s “Rise of the Videogame Zinesters”

1. Anthropy argues against “artistic legitimacy” for videogames stating that all creations “[do not] need validation beyond [being art].” In the age of unlimited access and floods of content, shouldn’t we advocate for a team of gatekeepers (I actually prefer the term, “caretakers”) who will monitor what is produced and circulated? She mentions YouTube as an ideal platform, but even YouTube has its police and gatekeepers. If games are indeed ways for creators to “communicate [their] values,” then we are dealing with and sorting through a vast array of them in the spectrum of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ What would be an ideal way to protect and nurture the art form of digital games moving forward?
2. I am not convinced that We the Giants is a “compelling way to explore themes of sacrifice.” When I first read about it in the book, I was rather concerned with how the game might diminish the value of life, and de-sensitize the users when it comes to suicide. Am I being overly sensitive, or are there others out there who share similar thoughts on this?
3. Anthropy draws a distinct line between videogames and film, while drawing on more similarities between videogames and theatre. With the ever-evolving landscape of technology and cinema in mind, I wonder if she would argue differently on this comparison today. I personally see the line becoming blurry as virtual and augmented reality ‘elevating’ both forms to new heights. Both film and videogames are morphing into new creatures as films are becoming more interactive while games are continuously pursuing cinematic styles of storytelling. What are your thoughts?
4. I applaud Anthropy’s call to reinvent the videogame industry as zinesters “explore different stories to tell.” As someone who has recently attended a zine expo, however, I am not so positive that this is the ideal route we should embark on. As much as I appreciated each and every precious zine I encountered there and all of the efforts that went into creating them, it was such a small event that only appealed to a tiny, niche group of Asian artists. Creating a network that Anthropy envisions will require uprooting of the current sociopolitical and commercial foundations of this industry, and I am just having a hard time envisioning this new paradigm being actualized. Am I the only one?

Rise of the Videogame Zinesters Questions

Hello friends,

I have to say that I am quite excited for our journey to the Lightbox this evening. Somehow I’ve never seen a Brakhage film, and thus, I find myself eagerly anticipating this evening’s screening.

I also quite enjoyed this week’s reading. I truly found Anthropy’s argument compelling, as I felt like her intervention was more grounded in the circumstances that have most affected her as a game designer who may not conform to the traditional occupants of a game designing space. What follows is a list of quandaries I had from reading her piece.

1.) Throughout reading Rise of the Videogame Zinesters I found myself drawing multitudinous comparisons between the videogame industry and the cinematic one. A large number of the issues that Anthropy brings forward, particularly in the introductory stages of the book,  reminded me of problematic elements found in mainstream cinematic production. To name a few: overly masculine spaces, decisions being made by corporate entities with little actual attachment to the production processes, overworked hands, among others. Those who have worked in cinematic industries in some capacity can attest to the long hours required at pretty much all of the levels of making a movie, from on set to the editing table.

In a semi-related consideration, I have seemed to notice a bit of a distaste for comparisons between video games and cinema amongst those who actively work with digital games on a day-to-day basis. Not unfairly I might add, as they seem to be drastically different mediums in many capacities. However, to what extent does similarities within production contexts lead to proliferation of this comparison? Is it possible that because cinema and digital games are produced in similar manners we have a tendency to evaluate them on similar terms?

1a.) Considering the above assertions, I am curious about the extent to which we consider video games in relation to cinema in the underground forms of digital games. I found myself very excited by the section heading “Crap Games,” on page 109, only to realize that the section was designed to propagate an argument for freedom to create without the weight of failure. I would therefore like to pose the following question: in what ways can we see similarities in relation to the gaming community’s reaction to “trash” art versions of video games, such as Air Control and QWOP and the cinematic elevation of films such as John Waters Pink Flamingos? In what ways is are reactions dissimilar.

2.) In the spirit of deeply interrogating arguments in what we read, I would like to discuss the concepts of moding as raised by Anthropy. While I wholeheartedly agree with Anthropy’s assertions that simple modifications have immense possibility of subversiveness, I also find myself wondering if it is possible that some modifications merely provide the illusion of subversiveness. To what extent should a modification challenge the initial premises to be considered truly subversive?

3.) From reading the many examples provided by Anthropy in Chapter Six, I was struck by a realization. Many of the truly subversive games that she mentions (the Box Making Game in particular) seemed to be based off  pre-existing video games and game tropes. I personally had to look up what Sokoban was to get a better understanding of what the intended purpose. To what extent would the subversiveness of a game with a strong grounding video game traditions be lost on those with little prior knowledge of video games and their history? Likewise, to what extent would this limit the capacity of someone fully appreciate the art they’re interacting with in this situation?

4.) Anthropy’s piece seems to heavily advocate for the freedom to test one’s own limits within the creation of digital games. To what extent would you say that a rigorous following of her own step-by-step process outlined in Chapter 7 provide a burgeoning game designer with that freedom? To what extent would it possibly limit one’s ability to recognize their own game making potential?

Hope to see everyone this evening!

Isbister Questions + Game Suggestions

Hey All,

Sorry for forgetting to post my questions earlier! Also as brought up in class – a few game suggestions that came to my mind were:

1. To the Moon – a really beautiful and powerful story game that can be played through in a few hours that has an indie 2D style.

2. Portal – a first person puzzle game that has a great difficulty curve and will truly make you think differently.

3. Undertale – unconventional, hilarious, and your actions have consequences. This one may be hard if you have no gaming experience but it is definitely an amazing experience!

Questions:

1. What steps must be taken by games media, developers, and consumers in order for games to be better understood as an artistic medium analogous to cinema? Are there ways in which game literacy could be achieved/attained without extensive time with experiential hands-on learning?

2. Incorporating aspects of game and immersive worlds design into cinema could allow for a deeper evocative and emotional experiences. Is there room or the possibility for flow states within cinematic experiences that are enhanced by these techniques?

3. To what extent should developers limit the scope of actions available to the player in games and the worlds they create? Are cases of censorship justified in games like Postal 2 which was banned in New Zealand? The game contains extensive and controversial racial stereotyping, and gives the player the ability to take part in extremely violent acts or avoid them altogether.

4. Logistically what are the ramifications of interactive choice based film? How can the extra strain be accommodated for in production?

Anthropy Questions + Lanier and Brackage links

Hi everyone!

Excited for our journey to TIFF this week. I wanted to also pass along some links detailed the, at-times, troubled relationship between Stan Brackage and Carolee Schneemann – https://lux.org.uk/writing/revisiting-brakhage-3-containing-carolee-schneemann ; https://www.artpractical.com/column/interview_with_carolee_schneemann/ . I thought these would give a bit of context for some of Brackage’s work; it also gives Schneeman’s truly amazing “Fuses” more clarity – https://vimeo.com/12606342

Plus! Lanier interview: https://www.wired.com/story/interview-with-jaron-lanier/ . Very interesting talk about what we should be doing with our data, how it circulates, the issues with a “free” Internet.

And, please do not start playing this game if you have something to do (I lost two days to it). The interface is a bit cryptic (which I think is part of the fun), but I loved it: http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/

Questions!

One of the strengths of Anthropy’s book, in my opinion, is the scope it takes in considering all the cultural and industrial (capitalistic) factors that go into producing and consuming digital games. What can be gained by considering the larger facts of game production when generating games (and cinema)? What do you think is the most encouraging factor in the current moment of game design and distribution? What do you think is the most discouraging factor in the current moment of game design and distribution?

On page 27, there is a long reflection on the value of “magic,” and, throughout the book, there is also a stress on not necessarily having to know the back-end of a tool in order to use it. While such tools (and WYSIWYG tools in general) grant wider access to complicated actions than more opaque ones, what might be some of the larger concerns with casting “magic” and having systems be “black boxes” to their front-end users? As makers, why might it be essential to know as much about the “magic” behind the end results (spells) that a maker constructs. Building this slightly on Lee’s question from the previous class about educating users, but also the discussion on page 53 about the hidden rules of games.

Page 53 discusses the roles of limits and rules in creativity – these are further explored in challenges that require makers to generate games in a set time limit. What are the benefits of giving yourself limits and constraints when making a creative document? What is the value in making “crap” games (as Anthropy later calls certain experiments, with affection)? One-off experiments? To not finishing, or polishing, a work?

The repeated insistence that games be a persona experience is exciting and a very interesting way to think through game design in the face of AAA games and larger game companies. Still, how can the “personal” game designer step outside their own solipsism to create games that empathetically consider their audience (the player)? What might be some useful strategies for imaging the “other” that is a piece of art’s audience and their reactions that that art? This question springs from my own fears (and experiences teaching creative writing at the university level) wherein makers use the “personal” as a bit of shield against critique or engagement beyond simply personal expression.

More Isbister Questions

Isbister Questions (Derval)

1. Isbister writes: “This capacity to evoke actual feelings of guilt from a fictional experience is unique to games. A reader or filmgoer may feel emotions when presented with horrific fictional acts on the page or screen, but responsibility and guilt are not generally among them… Because they depend on active player choice, games have an additional palette of social emotions at their disposal.” (8-9)
–> In what ways are the visual and narrative techniques used in games to create identification with characters (allowing feelings like guilt to arise from the choices one makes) derived from cinematic language? Rather than seeing these kinds of emotional responses as unique to game environments, can we think of them as an evolution of cinema?

2. Do self created avatars and self-designed environments in gaming offer the opportunity for radical reclamation of hetero patriarchal, white-supremacist media? Do these reclamations, like the Indigenous Machinima in Second Life that Aaron and Lia showed for their show and tell, offer viable alternatives to exclusionary mainstream media, or simply demonstrate the necessity of creating new networks of production and distribution?

3.What are some unconventional social experiences that people have had through networked gaming? Has anyone in the class fostered valuable connections this way? What unique things can we gain from these social experiences?

Questions from How Games Move Us & Frankenstein AI

Hi All,

Here are some of the questions emerging for me.

1. “Ubiquitous connection has dramatically changed how we communicate with one another on a day-to-day basis, shaping how we understand community and copresence. Texting, Twitter and Facebook, email, and blogs offer countless ways to check in on someone—or many someones.” — Taking this assertion on its own, I’m curious about the qualitative and quantitative ways that ubiquitous connection has dramatically changed how we communicate. I’m curious about the ways that sousveilence has and continues emerge (as a response to surveilence)? I’m also interested by the ways that “checking-in” on someone (whether friend, acquaintance, or someone we dislike) has become a kind of policing of one another? In general, I think we all agree that ubiquitous connection has changed how we communicate, and certainly it has (re)shaped what we imagine “community” to be, but I’d like to take pause and really consider the ways it has.

2. In general there is a case being made that because games engage us as players more directly that we are engaged at a deeper emotional level. “I feel a sense of consequence and responsibility for my choices. In the end, I am to blame for the outcomes, because they arise from my own actions. This rich set of feelings that I have about the solo experience of running depends on the active role that I play in the experience—that is, on my own meaningful choices.” — are our choices really meaningful? I’ve certainly played games where this might be true, but I’m also curious whether this is overreaching? Whether, as a gamer, I really feel a sense of consequence and responsibility for my choices. Other peoples’ experiences? Do you feel this is true?

3. “Virtuality need not be a prison. It can be the raft, the ladder, the transitional space, the moratorium that is discarded after reaching greater freedom. We don’t have to reject life on the screen, but we don’t have to treat it as an alternative life either. We can use it as a space for growth. Having literally written our online personae into existence, we are in a position to be more aware of what we project in everyday life.” — In almost all of our readings, people have made assertions like this one. Constantly pointing us towards the possibilities that virtuality (inclusive of gaming, VR, AR, etc) can help us evaluate, transform, better understand/relate to/appreciate our everyday and the “real.” Is there something to be said about virtuality enabling something beyond our everyday? Is it simply okay if games (in this instance, or elsewhere VR, AR, etc) allow us to appreciate a different world altogether? What if it is okay that these experiences take us away, somewhere else, and don’t offer us some new insight or lens to appreciate our everyday? What if an alternate life is actually needed given the lives we are living? I hear the point on not having to reject our lives on the screen, but does it necessarily have to contribute or make deeper our lived experiences? What if it has something to teach us that is unto itself? Especially as our lived experiences and are contemporary realites can be so fraught, polarized and difficult. Not to be confused with escapism. But rather, can virtuality afford us entirely different worldviews and otherworldly embodied experiences? Yes, for growth. But can that growth take on other qualities than what we may initially understand a “space for growth” to suggest, i.e. growth as we aspire towards in our everyday; growth that is about us, for us, centring us. Not sure that makes sense… curious what you all think?

4. “Like the anthropologist returning home from a foreign culture, the voyager in virtuality can return to a real world better equipped to understand its artifices.27″ — just have to point this one out. Extremely aware of the very colonial ways that digital worlds are approached and talked about. The new frontier. The place where we can go and extract information/resources/potential/insight… Foreign worlds we can travel to, where we may find artifacts… the kinds that may better our own worlds and understandings. Revealing to us our limitations and depth. Offering us an opporunity to grow unlike anything before. Do we see the virtual as foreign worlds with fewer (no) consequences? Is that because they are made? Do we believe that the virtual is not a previously inhabited space? We have thought that before in “real life” to devastating and genocidal ends. In fact, hasn’t Facebook, social media and networked gaming  shown us that the virtual is now deeply inhabited, fiercely and toxically defended — and already having serious consequences to peoples lives (both good and bad)? Then, are we in need of a digital language that is rooted in a justice framework? A framework that seeks to situate ourselves in the patterns of human history and our contemporary realities? Should we not advocate for an approach to our techno futures (with all its cool virtual possibilities, gadgets and alternate/augmented worlds) that is full of reverence, respect, and humility for what it already and can further offer us? Do we not need a relational perspective, one that highlights the ways we can cultivate good relationships with these worlds and the many people/technologies that inhabit them? Not as voyagers and pioneers, but as community members, friends, people aspiring to be allies and accomplices in future world-building?  Do others fear that language like this suggests we are in danger (it is already happening), in yet another dimension of existence (the virtual), of making the same mistakes? Thoughts?

5. Following from this last point above, I’ve been thinking a lot about AI. About the Frankenstein project (and its aims to inform AI about the depth of humanistic qualities) — Are we most afraid of AI evolving beyond us because of the kind of colonial thinking that gives rise to statements like the one above. If AI evolved into something other than what we make it to be, then it is no longer a resource we can extract. Rather, we fear, we become its resource — to be manipulated and used (or worse discarded) at its will rather than ours. And to echo points that others have brought up in class, if this is the case, why are we trying to build something that has the potential to become something, if we aren’t ready to accept the consequences of enabling a life to form?

6. How like AI are we? Certainly we shape and grow from data that we absorb from the world around us, from our senses, from our experiences (micro and macro). But are we the sum of the information that goes into our inputs? Is AI? Surely we would say consciousness is multifaceted and not only data inputs. From that, and to say, clearly I’m not a computer scientist (thoughI wish I was), but still… I’m not sure I grasp how AI process the information that is fed into them. Where does that all that information go (as in, how does AI “make sense” of that info)? How does an algorithm discern? In the instances where AI have developed their own languages (only to be shut down promptly by their operators)… how is such a shift taking place? What are the ways in which decisions are made? Thinking about the Frankenstein project, where we are offering personal experiences and stories so that AI may better understand humans (and perhaps, hopefully we are imagining that therefore AI will also cultivate a humanity of its own)… what is really underneath this?

———————

looking forward to Wednesday’s class, and hope you are all well!