The Computational Sublime
Therefore the concept of the computational sublime is introduced – the instilling of simultaneous feelings of pleasure and fear in the viewer of a process realized in a computing machine. A duality in that even though we cannot comprehend the process directly, we can experience it through the machine – hence we are forced to relinquish control. It is possible to realize processes of this kind in the computer due to the speed and scale of its internal mechanism, and because its operations occur at a rate and in a space vastly different to the realm of our direct perceptual experience.
An example of a work that subverts standard technological processes and suggests the role of the computational sublime is that of the Dutch artists Erwin Driessens & Maria Verstappen [19]. Their work, IMA Traveller subverts the traditional concept of cellular automata by making the automata recursive, leading to qualitatively different results to those achieved through direct mimicry of technical CA techniques in other generative works. IMA Traveller suggests the computational sublime because it is in effect, an infinite space. It offers both pleasure and fear: pleasure in the sense that here inside a finite space is the representation (and partial experience) of something infinite to be explored at will; fear in that the work is in fact infinite, and also in that we have lost control. The interaction is somewhat illusory, in the sense that while we can control the zoom into particular sections of the image, we cannot stop ourselves from continually falling (zooming) into the work, and we can never return to a previous location in the journey. The work creates an illusion of space that is being constantly created for the moment (as opposed to works that draw from pre-computed choice-sets). The zooming process will never stop. That there is no real ground plane or point of reference suggests Kierkegaard’s quote of section 2.3 – you are always going, but only from the point of where you’ve been.
from Art, Emergence, and the Computational Sublime by Jon McCormack
Just read this tonight. For myself, it's an example of one of those great pieces of research that hits very close to the bulls eye of what you’ve been pursuing.
I've been hacking at a wall to generate more specifics on my thesis over the past month, as well as sorting out and dealing with personal issues, but I'm seeing some real light that I'll hopefully be able to cast soon. Thanks to those who have been patient with my abstractions.
4:19 AM October 21, 2005 Comments 0 TrackBack 0
the sublime
I've often cited this concept as an influence in my thesis work, but have failed to articulate it fully in my presentations. Here are some excerpts from wikipedia that offer some explanation and context for this common source of artistic inspiration:
exerpt from sublime wikipedia entry:
The sublime, on the other hand, was for Kant a feeling of satisfaction celebrating reason itself and our capacity as moral beings. The feeling is experienced when our imagination fails to comprehend the vastness of the infinite and we become aware of the ideas of reason and their representation of the totality of the universe, as well as those powers that operate in the universe which we do not grasp and are beyond our control. The feeling is at once existential in that we realize our own finitude, or smallness, but is universal in the realization of our own moral worth as an autonomous being belonging to the fraternity of mankind which shares a moral destiny through its capacity to apply the moral laws of practical reason. The judgments of the sublime arise from two principles of reason, the mathematical and the dynamic, which are both elements that have a common thread throughout Kant’s writings on pure and practical reason. The sublime reflects the exaltation of reason and the nobility of the human spirit, whereas judgments of beauty belong to the "mere" understanding.
exerpt from Lyotard wikipedia entry:
Lyotard is fascinated by this admission, from one of the philosophical architects of the Enlightenment, that the mind cannot always organise the world rationally. Some objects are simply incapable of being brought neatly under concepts. For Lyotard, in Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, but drawing on his argument in The Differend, this is a good thing. Such generalities as 'concepts' fail to pay proper attention to the particularity of things. What happens in the sublime is a crisis where we realise the inadequacy of the imagination and reason to each other. What we are witnessing, says Lyotard, is actually the differend; the straining of the mind at the edges of itself and at the edges of its conceptuality.
1:38 AM September 21, 2005 Comments 1 TrackBack 0
Coliberation
Some poetic and very relevant pages of theory for my thesis development by New Games pioneer and faculty member Bernie DeKoven. This chapter covers a few of his coined terms including "Coliberation" and the "ME/WE" relationship.
The excerpt is from "The Well-Played Game: A Playful Path to Wholeness".
1:52 AM August 30, 2005 Comments 1 TrackBack 0
quote - light
Don't think this would hold up against certain free will arguments, but I still like the thought of it:
"Having a background in science, anyone will tell you that everything pretty much is light. Form and frequency, quantum physics and the fact that humans are made up of bits of matter (light), at this level, particles neither come into nor go out of existence, and at that level we are eternal. And although pain operates at one level, there is no pain at the underlying level of matter. People operate at different levels...
If you look at the cycles of the moon, it starts as a thin crescent and then gradually waxes until it becomes full; then it gradually wanes back into another crescent and then it is gone. The moon reflects sunlight like humans reflect information. We wax and wane and when we become full moons, our egos are full. We think we have this knowledge when in fact, the information we have is pure. And how it reflects or shines off of us, is something we take credit for as though the moon could take credit for its brightness when, in fact, it is only reflecting light from the sun. We have to understand that we are ego-less just as the moon is without light. It and we are simply reflectors. The ego is not responsible for the information. It can reflect the information in creative ways, but the information itself is pure."
- Maynard James Keenan
12:37 AM April 1, 2005 Comments 0 TrackBack 0
1, 2, 3, 4...
Been wrestling with some ideas on communal experiences / games, and it's remarkable how just the difference in the number of people can influence the resulting experience.
As one person, you basically have yourself to rely on and work against. With two, you have the other person to rely on, but if that person works against you, you have no one else. But with three, you can pair up and gain majority over the one person at any time. But as the odd person out, the majority over you is only 1 person at any time. This makes things like challenges, advantages, etc. relatively low.
Then there's the effect on intimacy and communication. Three's company, four's a party; I think there's an interesting change happening here. The inability of 3 to choose equal sided teams can be a good thing in that it creates a fluid decision making process via its oddness, and allows individuals to establish deeper interpersonal connections (i.e. you're more likely to spill your guts) than with 4+.
It also allows room for individuals to enjoy a degree of solitude in the experience, which is something I am having a hard time giving up (after having decided to create a group experience as opposed to a solitary one).
It would be interesting to experiment with changing the sex of participants and observing the differences of experience in relation to exertion of majority control, sexual desire, etc.
Should read some social psychology and theory on trinities. Maybe a psychology or communication student would be interested in the work.
Of course need to look at games for three. Come to think of it, it would be interesting to design games for couples. Now the idea of two couples playing a game is intriguing. Or in-game modulation, switching, trading of players. What happens when your "team" designation is dynamic? Should read about the New Games that do this.
9:50 PM March 6, 2005 Comments 2 TrackBack 0
refrigerator boxes
(The middle lines represent a single base narrative thread.)
Does the achievement of graph b require highly sophisticated AI?
What tools and methods can get us there? Is the game Facade the only route? Or could a game use this complex AI, not to handle conversational language (or only to a small degree), but to weave a narrative of rich emergence and complexity. I'd like to see a game that takes place in a single small room that is rich in narrative and emergent interactions. I'd much rather use all the AI, shaders and physics in Half Life 2 to experience a deeply rich emergent narrative in a small environment, than battle huge creatures and fight urban combat. Apply Sims 2 AI to animals, aliens and other creatures with no recognizable language, to create characters with emotions and motivations, but without the need to fake verbal expression while reaping the benefits of some sort of expressive vocal sound.
I've never read a hard definition of "sandbox" gaming theory, perhaps this relates closely? Anyone play in a large cardboard box as a kid? Better than a million Teddy Ruxpins.
1:30 AM October 12, 2004 Comments 2 TrackBack 0
Play, Games, and Goals
In reading about defining games, I’m intrigued by the demarcation between games and play, and the idea by some that a goal is a necessary element of a game. Salen and Zimmerman describe a goal as a “quantifiable outcome.” E.M. Avedon cites George H. Mead as saying that: “The game has a definite logic, so that there is a definite end to be obtained.” Mead goes on to say that this “definite end—may be thought of as the [game’s] purpose.”
Safeplaces has pushed me to think about these issues in more depth. In the game, you’re given little to no instruction. In fact the instruction you find explicitly tells you to “play”. The scene is of a small hilltop with a boy seated under a tree with a bird in it, surrounded by flowers, mushrooms and other vegetation that play sounds when clicked on. The bird sings a particular tune, and you realize through the game play that by moving the mouse over three particular flowers you can replicate the bird’s tune to solve a piece of the puzzle. The solution isn’t completely apparent or always literally visible, but there is one. The experience requires investigation and moves at a different pace than other games.
I find that when seeking the solution to some puzzles becomes difficult, the game offers little enjoyment other than finding the solution to the puzzle. The experience becomes boring, and if the solution isn’t reached, this feeling can transition into frustration and withdrawal. Safeplaces has a puzzle to be solved that is moderately challenging and a bit opaque at the start. But because the experience is enjoyable beyond the puzzle aspect, it avoids the boring pitfalls of other puzzles.
Safeplaces has inspired me to think about how games can toe the line between achieving a goal or outcome vs. simply the playful experience of the environment or system. An outcome within a game is quantifiable according to Salen and Zimmerman, and implies an end to either the game as a whole, or a period within the game (as with RPG’s). Is an experience where the outcome is ambiguous or difficult to define and quantify a game or just play? What is quantifiable exactly? If the game causes some spiritual or emotional effect within the player that is difficult to define and quantify, is it then not a game? I’m not so sure. What kind of content is appropriate for this sort of outcome? If a puzzle is solvable, but the “solution” is mysterious and logically unintelligible, is it still quantifiable? Indeed, something has happened that may be termed a solution or outcome, but if these solutions are numerous within the system, and the environment is playful in and of itself, are you playing a game?
Have game designers and consumers become myopic by preconceptions of how goals in a game should be structured? My guess is that it’s similar to what happens with cinematic narrative. There are formulas that work, that sell money, that are artsy or pretentious, that are crappy, etc. As I hear all the time from others, games seem to be caught in deep ruts that don’t appeal to many people. Thankfully it’s changing and the audiences ignored by FPS’s and RPG’s are being authored to more. Hopefully more people will create different experiences and explore new paths that are, I think, ripe for exploration.
7:49 PM March 20, 2004
Reactivity, Interactivity, and Dialogue
What's the difference between Interaction and Reaction?
Does interactivity imply intelligence?
Does reaction imply lack of intelligence?
A system reacts to input with a message.
To move beyond reaction, does the message need to be from an intelligent system? If the system isn't intelligent, can the message be considered interaction if it is at least derived from an intelligent author / programmer? How are the experiences of these systems different?
What are the differences between intelligent messages and meaningful messages?
How is a meaningful and intelligent interaction different from an interaction that is simply meaningful?
Differences and Relationships to explore:
Reaction / Interaction / Dialogue
Intelligence / Meaning
Reactivity - implies response to stimulus
Interactivity - implies reciprocal action upon each other, a two way flow of information.
Dialogue - implies a conversation between two people or intelligent entities.
Meaning
- convey, denote
- symbolize, signify
- intention
- importance, value.
Intelligence
- the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason. also : the skilled use of reason.
- the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria.
- Intentionality.
===================================
I'm searching for theoretical essays and writings on this topic. If anyone has some references or just thoughts, please comment.
11:57 PM February 8, 2004 Comments 4
Erik Loyer - "Resisting the Epic"
Old piece. Definitely still relevant.
"The title of this piece comes from a talk I gave at the 1999 Interactive Frictions conference in Los Angeles [Here at USC]."
"In my opinion, interactive designers are constantly being led astray by our culture's grandiose visions for the potential of digital media."
"These visions are fed by popular understanding of the Hollywood 'epic' as the pinnacle of creative output, and ignore the true nature of the medium."
- Eric Loyer
----------------------------------------
I see certain correlations between Eric's argument and my own.
Life is like a box crayons.
It's the content stupid.
----------------------------------------
Does anyone know if there is a transcript or recording of the Interactive Frictions conference?
2:35 PM February 2, 2004
A Perspective on the Technology, Medium, and Pre-Occupations of VR
I often find that a good way for me to maintain perspective on where I’m headed with my work and intellectual interests is to pull back and try to determine if there is an essence to all the specific things that I keep pursuing. I’ve always loved animation, special effects, virtual reality, computers, makeup, costume, drawing, sculpture, photography, etc. I’ve pursued these areas to varying degrees over the years. As things progressed I began to examine what it was that motivated my interests. One of these factors I found was a fascination with the power of illusion.
Illusion is a phenomenon that causes a very powerful response from the perceptions of living beings. I think this is no surprise when you consider how many different things in our lives are related to it. Simulations and representations are all around us; as Baudrillard so unintelligibly posited, simulacra are increasingly pervasive. When examining the ontological questions of what is reality, truth, consciousness, etc, the last 50 Po-Mo years have made us increasingly conscious of the epistemological questions of how we can trust our knowledge. Illusion is everywhere, from espionage, to subterfuge, magicians, theatre, cinema, games, realist painting, photography, drugs, androids, AI, HiFi, HiDef, Imax screens, VR screens, Television screens, screens on buildings, screens in clothing. Indeed, from monarch butterflies, to chameleons and camouflage, even our very survival is intimately linked to illusion. The idea that we can be fundamentally deceived, or that we can deceive others is scary, sexy, wonderful, and terrifying all at the same time.
Another “essence” that I’ve been interested in over the years is immersion. Obviously VR is one, but things such as meditation, hypnotism, prayer, mysticism, imagination, daydreaming, night dreaming, nightmares, theatres, viewmasters, hmd’s, etc. are all linked in a way as experiences where our mind is engaged and removed from distraction. Yoga, Zen Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation all seek control over the body and mind to allow a being to reach a mental state where distractions are minimized and the mind is able to gain powerful insight.
The traditional “holy grail” end goal of VR is the creation of a perfectly immersive illusion of reality. I think it’s safe to say that this is a theoretical goal considering the fact that we don’t nearly understand AI, or how to simulate the systems that make up our world. We’d need a fundamental understanding of how the world works on the smallest and largest levels to truly reach the grail. We’d need to understand the world as if we were the creator of it, for to perfectly simulate it, we’d have to fundamentally and perfectly re-create it.
We’re going to reach a point soon where the level of simulation is downright revolutionary and will transform the way we live in ways no sci-fi film will be able to predict. The goal is undoubtedly worth moving towards. However, as with many researchers developing technology, the question becomes what do you do with it right now? Do you push the development and possibly create new technology or a new medium. Or do you use it to create something amazing within the medium? I don’t think one is more correct to focus on. They’re symbiotic. However, VR is a unique medium where the development of the technology holds so much promise to many that they can become pre-occupied with pushing it at the sake of content creation and experimentation with what already exists.
The technology opens new doors for exploration and creation via the medium just as cameras, paint, pencils and paper did. Painting was for a long time, in general, pre-occupied with the accurate recording of rich people, and the depiction of religious subject matter. Experimenters, rebels, “avant-garde” users of mediums have always existed. However, in the last ~150 years the level of experimentation with media has exploded (as has technological invention). Abstract Expressionism, Dadaism, Pop-Art, Jazz, Hip Hop, Punk, Rock and Roll, all pushed hard against an established medium to take it to a new and exciting place.
There are amazing possibilities to be explored with VR and immersive media right now that don’t have anything to do necessarily with simulation of reality. Engineers and artists in the field know this. The important thing to recognize is that though we’re constantly looking down the road and around the corner with VR, the time is indeed now to really work within the boundaries and develop quality content within the medium as it stands. Early photographers and moviemakers didn’t make a few prints and films and then spend the majority of their time trying to create high-res color film. They experimented and created wonderful b&w art. Film Noir was made possible by experimentation with the unique qualities of the b&w medium. If they had been pre-occupied, it either may have been delayed in it’s emergence, or never have existed at all.
As more artists gain access to the technology of immersive media and VR, the experimentation will increase. Artists in general enjoy experimenting with a medium and creating with it. I believe everyone is creative, and I use the word ‘artist” very loosely here. However, engineers in the field of VR who are also artists aren’t as prevalent as one or the other. Therefore, the balance between artistic experimentation and technology invention has been lopsided. Amazing possibilities and creative experiences are ready to be worked on by artists the world over. However, this will only happen if, on a large scale, people who currently control the majority of the access and funding (academia, corporations and government) recognize and value that this expressive creative work needs to be done.
12:55 AM January 15, 2004