In the article for this week’s reading, we take an in depth look at the interaction between technology and art, how the two inform one another, and how through this interaction they challenge “the limits of the possible based on previous experience, knowledge and conceptual frames” (Jones, p21). We explore the evolution of art and technology from origins in alphanumeric hardcopy, static and dynamic screen images, through objects and events that are not screen based, to dynamic, interactive, multi-sensory output (Jones, p21). It is Jones contention that “old cultural patterns do not die. They may fade or become more evident; that is, they may be de-mphasized or emphasized. Only as part of the general ‘non-expert’ culture can such patterns contribute significantly to maintenance and/or change” (Jones, p21).

Most notably Jones follows the evolution of the combination of art and geometry to represent informational data and to describe the world around us (originating from the Computer Technique Group of Japan, who combined photographic and geometric data to represent political commentary [Jones, p23]) through the development of early three-dimensional screen imagery displayed as wired-frames to modern virtual environments (Jones, p24).

Jones assertion that only through non-expert use of art and technology can enculturation of such events occur (Jones, p22). This very much speaks to the points made in this weeks video lecture by Jane McGonigal.

Mcgonigal suggests that there are practical and important implications to the number of hours devoted to gaming (McGonigal, TED2010). She discussed the relevance of harnessing this energy and applying the embedded attitudes and sensibilities (optimism) towards the world around us. In this way the two are very much on the same page regarding how a current use of art and technology (video gaming) can have future implications that weren’t previously understood or intended. It requires a dialogue between science and art, and the acceptance and widespread use by non-experts to propel things to the next evolutionary level.

 

 

 

Jones, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.

 

Mcgonigal, Jane. Web. (Recorded at TED2010, February 2010 in Long Beach, CA. Duration: 20:04)

According to Jane McGonigal’s presentation on why gaming can create a better world she suggests that in games individuals are “the most likely to stick to a problem as long as it takes – to get up after failure and try again,” (McGonigal, TED2010). She then contrasts that with real life stating, “In real life when we face failure, when we confront obstacles, we often don’t feel that way; we feel overcome; we feel overwhelmed; we feel anxious, maybe depressed, frustrated or cynical – we never experience those feelings when we’re playing games. They just don’t exist in games,” (McGonigal, TED2010). She made a point to identify character level-specific quests and problems as one of the motivating factors – the knowledge that your character won’t be overwhelmed whatever opposition you encounter, despite having to work hard to achieve your goals, because the obstacles are scaled to your relative in-game level.

Do you also think the fact that games have pre-established storylines, ultimate outcomes, and predetermined solutions or sets of solutions contributes to this sense of optimism? In real life this doesn’t exist: there are problems, and we hope to eventually discover solutions, but they aren’t predetermined — there are no guarantees. The inherent knowledge that there is a solution does not exist.

My other question relates back to our study of horror. Do you think the comfortable distance – the fact that the game world is knowably fake, like the act of viewing a horror movie (whatever fear exists is “safe” and can be overcome by the knowledge that you are watching a screen, are safe, and what is about to happen isn’t real) promotes this optimism and hopeful attitude? A gamer knows if they attempt a task and fail (maybe die), they have ample opportunity to make another attempt – generally at no real cost to themselves, their character or gameplay. This is maybe especially true if you know when to save your game – valuable progress isn’t even forfeited.

I also thought McGonigal’s anecdote about the invention of the first dice game had an interesting tie-in to this week’s reading. It was said that Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian, cited the king of Lydia as being the first inventor of games as a means of enduring a drought season: one day his subjects would eat, the next they would play dice as in order to distract them from the limited number foodstuff resources (McGonigal, TED2010).

In our reading Jones suggests that “old cultural patterns do not die. They may fade or become more evident; that is, they may be deemphasized or emphasized. Only as part of the general ‘non-expert’ culture can such patterns contribute significantly to maintenance and/or change,” (Jones, p21). Do you think McGonigal’s claims about the origin of gaming validate this theory? And if so, what is the individual non-expert’s role in contributing towards the evolution of gaming’s practical, real-world value or application?

Jones, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.

McGonigal, Jane. Recorded at TED2010, February 2010 in Long Beach, CA. Duration: 20:04