Dude Looks Like a Lady?

Not an Aerosmith fan, but the title seemed appropriate. Moving on...

I was kind of torn trying to choose just one article to cover for this week's blog post, but I decided to look at an article we read for Tuesday: "Does Lara Croft Wear Fake Polygons? Gender and Gender-Role Subversion in Computer Adventure Games." I kind of wanted to look at the idea of griefing in online communities and games that was presented in "A Rape in Cyberspace," but there were aspects of the Lara Croft scenario(s) that I wanted to hash out in a blog post. Let's time warp back to the start of my post and actually get to the article by Schleiner I opted to look at.

As the title implies this article is all about the video game character Lara Croft who is featured in the (still ?) popular Eidos franchise Tomb Raider. Schleiner breaks down the roles that Lara Croft fits into in gaming culture; not within the pantheon of gaming characters so much, but within the minds of gamers. Schleiner discusses the positions of Lara Croft and the player in several different player-avatar relationships in her efforts to explore how or if understandings of gender will change through playing games as characters of another gender. I agree with most of the points made in the article with the exception of the "Lara as Drag Queen" section.

Schleiner posits, "Male players of games like Tomb Raider are drawn into identification with the female avatar [...] [allowing] players to experiment with 'wearing' a feminine identity , echoing the phenomenon of gender crossing in Internet chat rooms and MUDs" (223). Now, given the state of gaming technology and popular game design at the time I do have some issue addressing this part of the article, but it seems that Schleiner is stating that Tomb Raider and Lara Croft present this great boon where "boundaries between [...] gender norms [...] will become more fluid" (223).Considering the way the game is represented and the limited interactions the player has with the world through the character, I don't agree with this assessment. This isn't to say that I don't think games can lead to a situation where there is a blurring of boundaries between genders and/or gender roles, but I don't think Tomb Raider and the character of Lara Croft are particularly effective at  doing so.

Initially, her statement might seem like a given considering that Lara Croft is/was one of the only major game heroines, but in the context of Tomb Raider, this assessment does not hold true. Schleiner points out many of the following issues with the way Lara Croft is presented, but the aforementioned conclusion is still presented. The first issue I have with this section is the fact that players can have a go at "wearing" another identity. I'd argue that this is nearly, if not completely, impossible given the locked third person perspective of the game. My disagreement has less to do with mirroring the virtual donning of a new skin in first person view and more with the conceptual disconnect that is added by a third person view. In third person view, the player is constantly aware of the disconnect between their own skin and that of the character. There is already the clear barrier of the hardware (controllers, screen, speakers, etc) and that of the unreal virtual visuals, but in third person view an additional layer or filter is added because the player is not only aware that they are merely acting as a puppeteer. Additionally, the character and its appearance is always placed in the center of the player's view. So, not only does the player have to immerse themselves into the virtual through the hardware, but now they also have to try to mentally augment their perspective to get past the centrality of the female character's appearance. I'm not saying that the player should not be aware of the character's gender, but rather the gender of the character shouldn't be this central to the experience because it seems to remove some an opportunity for the player to create a strong mental/emotional link. If something happens it seems like it is more of a situation of "Oh, look what happened to Lara" instead of "Oh, look what happened to me." The player is basically watching these things play out and the character is little more than something to draw the player's "gaze" rather than build a substantial connection.

The second issue I have with Schleiner placing Tomb Raider in the role of tool for gender blurring is the fact that there seems to be very little interpersonal/intercharacter activity within the game. Schleiner states, "Human non-player characters sometimes impart information [...] [but] the game shifts to a [...] mode, which precludes involved player interaction" (223). If the player is continually distanced from the character's role and interactions which are often key to defining who the character is in terms of gender and general personality, how can Lara Croft and Tomb Raider act as a gender blurring tool as it is positioned? Everything the player actually experiences while controlling Lara is very generic and could be experienced using a character of any gender or even a non-gendered character. Other than presenting a female form, Tomb Raider doesn't actually do anything to co-mingle or break established understandings or interpretations of gender. I see where watching a female character perform these typically male actions in a male dominated space could give one pause, but the design of the game keeps Lara (and the player) from the role of drag queen.

If we go back to the first statement I quoted and consider the comparison between Tomb Raider and MUDs in changing notions of gender, we can start to see how far away Tomb Raider is from meeting the goal stated by Scheiner. In a MUD, the player is actively playing as another person, potentially with another gender. As I tried to point out above, Lara just becomes this distanced virtual other that the player happens to be controlling within the context of Tomb Raider.

Stop! Hammer Time!

I had originally planned on writing about Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto," which Dena covered in the last round of theorist summaries, but then I decided to check out the other groups to see what other technologists had written. All were intriguing, but I decided to go with Manovich's article titled, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface," which is the article Mike covered last time.

I selected this article because I am taking a human-computer interface class this semester and the content of the article seemed interesting and relevant. Besides, I figured I should learn more about what Manovich has to say since I still haven't finished the copy of The Language of New Media I checked out.

I didn't really read Mike's summary or comments that thoroughly at first because I didn't want his take on the article to slant my take on things. After reading Manovich's article, formulating my ideas, and finally reading Mike's post, I think I came away with something sufficiently distinct.

Irrelevant note: I don't know if this was a transcription error or what, but I'm going to call out the following misprint/error: "It will require lots of work and imagination before aesthetically satisfying solutions will be find." For shame.

Beyond my unqualified comments regarding editing or whatnot, this article was good, even if it is too short. This article feels more like a detailed set of notes than an article, but it poses some interesting information and insights into how people currently engage with computers/technology and how that may or should change. I'm not saying that the way the article is composed is bad or anything, in fact I like it, but it's pretty light on discussion of theory and contains more information about "cool stuff" in general. As a result, it is easy to focus on the objects rather than ideas if the reader does not have sufficient background knowledge. Onward -

Manovich jumps into talk about how the impression and interpretation of interfaces have evolved over the years. This idea is demonstrated through a discussion about artworks by Milos Manelas that show how we've gone from being wrapped in a tangle of cables and surrounded by beige boxes to using devices that seamlessly integrate into our clothing, living spaces, and environments in general. No longer are we doomed to a desk full of cables, we have integrated/convergent technology that can more deeply integrate into the lives we have or want to have. I kind of dispute this idea because a third of my desk is currently strewn with cables and wired devices, but maybe that's more a comment on my poor cable management skills. Anyhow, with increased ease of use and technological invisibility, computing devices have gone from being these utilitarian fringe geek culture objects to fetishized objects of desire, status, and style.

The specific example Manovich uses involves an apparently upper-scale consumer electronics store in Paris that has made these high-fashion pieces of tech the center piece of their stores and business. They aren't just there to show off what they can do, but how they can enhance one's style. He then discusses how this is good because it shows an increasing comfort with this inanimate Other (or alien as Manovich puts it), but it is bad because there's no reason, real integration, or benefit connected to slapping a pretty pattern on a portable gaming system or BeDazzling a cell phone. This type of enhancement is detrimental because it creates an incongruity or "discontinuity" that is distracting and takes the user and others out of the experience the device is offering. After explaining this odd situation of people trying to shoe horn technology into traditional aesthetic frameworks, Lev talks about deeper integration of form and interface/experience. In my mind this was starting to sound like form follows function, but that idea is quickly refuted in the article ("This does not mean that from now on 'form follows interface.'") and replaced by the idea of mutual accommodation. Neither side of the interface/form coin gets preference; they both work in tandem to create a sensible user experience. In his closing remarks, Manovich notes that we're still at an early hybrid state where there seems to be a desire to smash art and science together without enough concern with how one impacts the other. We currently operate these "friendly alien" interfaces that we cope with, but they are not ideal or unified. However, progress is being made in bringing rather low-tech common/natural objects together with high-tech computing and interfaces. He points to the example of smart objects, which are seemingly normal devices that invisibly hold and integrate advanced experiences. Although he doesn't mention this in his article, a quasi-smart object can be seen in some implementations of Microsoft's Surface technology. There is still some disconnect between the form and interface, so I am reluctant to call it a "smart object," but it's a tangible example.

As I noted above, I think the cool things Manovich noted in this article are secondary to the ideas of integration, convergence, and shifting relationships to technology. If we, as a society, really want to be able to use computers as tools to do more work we have to get a point where it is as easy to use as a hammer. I'm being a little too simplistic, but I think the comparison stands. Whether it is through culture norms or some other innate understanding, you can give a child a hammer or better yet a hammer-like toy and within moments they understand that interface and form. There is an immediate connection with a tool that has many uses ranging from killing foes to building homes. The combination of simplicity and applicability has made the hammer a lasting and seemingly indispensable tool throughout history.

Having systems that look nice and require tons of training or don't make sense in a given context does not lead to ubiquitous use, just a larger niche. I, and I imagine many others, argue that without an ultra inclusive user base that has a very high level of fluency with the interfaces, human progress and invention will start to stagnate. I'm sure some idea would eventually emerge to overcome this compartmentalization of technology and continue the process of cultural evolution, but why not make computing more accessible and useful to everyone instead of the relatively elite group of the wealthy and/or educated. Accommodating both ends of the form and interface spectrum while also accommodating the integration of high technology will lead to fundamental and surprising changes in cultures and societies.

Manovich, Lev. "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface." Manovich.net,
    2006. Web. http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/friendly_alien.doc. 
    February 18, 2010.

I Am Going to Get Medieval on Your Person.

I opted to go with something aside from a science fiction film because I haven't watched any in a while, but I did see Pulp Fiction for the bajillionth on IFC the other day. I hadn't read chapter three of Digitizing Race at that point, but as I was thinking about my blog post after class I thought the episode of the movie featuring washed-up boxer Butch (Bruce Willis) and crime lord Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) could apply to the issue of race and technology that Nakamura discussed when talking about The Matrix series and Minority Report. Yes, there is much more to discuss in Pulp Fiction re: race and power, but I'm going to try to limit this to two topics so it is more manageable for all involved.

In order to see where I'm going, it's necessary to go over my understanding and interpretation of facets of Nakamura's argument. The points I found most compelling and applicable to Pulp Fiction are found on pages 116, and 118 of Digitizing Race. On page 116 Nakamura writes about technology present in the Matrix and Minority Report to demonstrate how black characters either have antiquated (or less potent) versions of technology used by whites or use the same technology as whites, but only in superficial or support roles. Regardless of the level or interaction or integration, the black characters can never meet or exceed the power or technology wielded by the white characters. On page 118, she writes, "Seeing is always seeing in relation to the state; attempts to break this deadlock result in the loss of all personhood, a condition under which one enters the dead space or alpha channel of sociality." I think everyone gets this point, but I'll elaborate. In other words, "the man" owns you whether or not you buy-in to that arrangement. In relation to contemporary times, if you don't go along w/ norms and go off the grid or operate within a structure outside that of general society, you don't get the same access and affordances of that society (existing in the alpha channel). However, once attempt you re-enter that society and function as if you don't subscribe to those societal rules and norms, you lose all rights to your person(hood) and are open to control by those in power.

On to Pulp Fiction, considering that the parallels are not exact, I am going to have to make some generalizations or slight modifications to Nakamura's exact quotes and try to fit them into a contemporary, realistic, and Pulp Fiction-y framework. (Side note: The title Pulp Fiction and term realistic seem at odds.) So, rather than treating technology as interfaces or computers as Nakamura does in her argument, I'll look at technology in terms of weaponry. Similarly, Nakamura uses seeing and its constant tether to the government in Minority Report to elaborate on ownership of the body and information. However, I'm going to replace state with white men (typically those wield most political power throughout the world) and rather than sight, I'll look at what is "yours," what you independently/personally control, and power.

Without explaining all the "episodes" of the film, I'll just say that Marsellus is positioned as a strong, powerful African American male figure throughout the narrative. However, the scene I noted at the beginning of this post reflects Marsellus's tenuous, if not completely fiction control of his own body, technology, and power within a largely and almost exclusively white context. I suppose I should quickly recap this act of the film to make sure everyone is on the same page. Although the statute of limitations on spoilers is up on this movie, skip the next paragraph if you've never seen the movie and want to watch it some time. Actually, if you want to watch Pulp Fiction without it being spoiled, you might want to skip this post all together.

[If you want to watch the crash and the end of the pawn shop scenes, you can watch you tube clips here and here.]

Butch (Willis) is strongly advised to throw a boxing match, by Marsellus, in exchange for money and Butch agrees. Butch does not go through with the deal, wins the fight, and inadvertently kills his black opponent in the ring. Butch flees. Marsellus and his henchmen attempt to track down Butch without success until Butch pulls up to a stop light/sign and Marsellus walks across the street in front of Butch's car. This begins a confrontation where Butch hits Marsellus with his car and then crashes said car into oncoming traffic. Marsellus and Butch both survive and are being watched/tended to by crowds of exclusively female bystanders. Upon coming to, Marsellus shoots at and begins chasing Butch. They wind up in a pawn shop where Butch beats up Marsellus and prepares to shoot him. However, the pawn shop owner (?) uses a shotgun to convince Butch to stop and the pawn shop owner proceeds to knock both of them out, tie them to chairs, and gag them. Marsellus and Butch are both bound and gagged and find themselves at the mercy of two "hillbilly boy[s]" (the pawn shop owner and a police officer/guard named Zed) who "randomly" selects Marsellus (using the eny meeny miney moe rhyme) to be raped. Marsellus is taken to an adjacent room while Butch manages to escape his restraints and flee the area, only to be compelled to save Marsellus. Butch browses through an assortment of pawn shop goods and eventually finds a Japanese-style sword that he uses to kill the pawn shop owner and keep Zed at bay. Marsellus gets the pawn shop owner's shotgun and shoots Zed. Butch and Marsellus part ways - The end, basically.

 So, how does that mess of a situation from Pulp Fiction intersect with The Matrix and Minority Report? Indirectly, but through Nakamura's assertions outlined above. Looking at the first issue of technology, we do see Marsellus in a role where he wields "technology" in the form of a hand gun and attempt to use that technology to assert some level of control against Butch. However, due to Butch's luck or divine gift, Marsellus is largely ineffective when he attempts to use this piece of technology. You might say, but he did shoot someone in that scene. Yes he did, but it was a woman bystander who was looking after Butch. And that's a whole separate topic. Anyway, Marsellus attempts to gain or assert power by using a weapon that is traditionally associated with western (white) warfare and can't do it. However, Butch (white), whose father was a soldier in Vietnam, appears to be completely fluent and adept at using a gun. Even a completely unrelated white character (the pawn shop owner) uses a gun with apparent ease. I'm not saying that only whites can use guns in the real world, but I am saying that in the context of this scene from Pulp Fiction, it appears that only white people are sufficiently capable with technology. You say, Marsellus does use a shotgun. Agreed, he obviously shoots Zed, but he's using it to support Butch in his rescue/revenge mission. You could argue that Marsellus was using technology on his own for his own goals, but Marsellus wasn't able to use the technology of the shotgun without the presence or intervention of Butch. Without Butch he was completely at the mercy of the two white hillbilly rapists, which brings me to point the second.

The whole idea of control over one's self (conceptually), body, and ability to manage or assert power is a pervasive one regardless of race when faced with advances in technology, but if we look at the situation in Pulp Fiction and historically, it is largely shaped by race and the control exerted by whites over non-whites (the state over the populace). This is a harder topic to tackle because it requires a significant level of reshaping to get Nakamura's argument to fit in such different confines. However, if we look at the portion of this act starting at the point Butch and Marsellus were bound to their chairs, we can see how Zed and the pawn shop owner act as the state or controlling power structure while Butch and specifically Marsellus wait to see what will happen after they left their own criminal underworld and entered the white's world of the pawn shop. This might seem ridiculous, a bit of a stretch, and contradictory since I just aligned Butch with whites a moment ago. Fair point, but I argue that this situation is slightly different in that the two power holders in this situation don't seem to consider Butch part of their world, he is put on the same level as Marsellus (at least superficially because I can't speak for the motivation of fictional charcters). After the completely arbitrary and degrading use of the eeny, meeny, miney, moe rhyme to select Marsellus, we can see how the rapists and potential murders have completely taken away any power, control, or ownership away from Marsellus. Not only by binding him and rendering him helpless, but also by violating his body through rape. While he held a substantial level of power outside the rules of society, as soon as he re-entered and attempted to behave in the same manner, those with power took control of Marsellus and attempted to remove his personhood and remove him from this societal model.

Strings

I'd first like to say that trying to use full web-based applications while tethered to your phone's edge connection is pretty awful. Actually, using the web at all over an edge connection is practically impossible and enraging.


With my mobile internet access gripe(s) out of the way,  I'll be talking about Donna Haraway article titled "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies." I think this article provides a solid model of critical theory or for looking at the world and the interaction(s) of all sorts of human and non-human systems. In this article Haraway not only explains this worldview, but also how her work is influenced by it.  Haraway starts her article by explaining the fields noted in the title and various other areas that constitute the typical understandings of modern life. She does this with very academic language that is kind of outside of my scope of knowledge so I'll try to skip going into detail and possibly misinforming everyone with a potentially  flawed interpretation of the early definition/rationale/justification portion of Haraway's article. Instead, I'll roll what I got from that part into the core of the article.

Approximately half-way through the nine page article, Haraway explains the "cat's cradle" that all these different points of view and disciplines operate within. All these lines or strings of thought do not exist outside each other, they rely on one another to build a more complete whole. In this interconnected webbing, all of these different avenues/thought processes need to be elastic and work with the other strings or hands in the cat's cradle game. People often see these different threads as completely separate and even possibly in conflict to some degree (i.e., one discipline or "discourse" should/can acquiesce and fall under the rules of another, rather than working together in their unique, but collaborative ways); however, if we consider Haraway's cat's cradle metaphor where all these different things are interconnected, we see that one thing can't stay still or overtake the others because that will either make the system static (and lead to stagnation) or will result in a tangled mess that we'll never pick apart. Neither confrontational approach accomplishes the goal of any of the others. Furthermore, what do we gain if we keep plodding down the same path regardless of what forks we might see? Maybe, we'll eventually get somewhere, but maybe we'll just go in circles never seeing that path that could have led to what we were missing. It's not only important to see that things are happening elsewhere, but work with how those things are influencing and can influence everything else. Maybe I'm using the following terms incorrectly, but Haraway seems to be advocating an interdisciplinary approach (approaches that are actually commingled) to the world rather than a multidisciplinary one (approaches that consider others, but don't actually consider intersections of those approaches). Sure, we can try to fit everything under the umbrella of XYZ, but we're missing out on seeing a much larger picture.


Like I noted in the beginning of this post, Haraway addresses many other things in greater detail, but this idea of understanding and employing different approaches without trying to make them fit into a single conceptual framework is most critical.

Haraway, Donna J. "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist
     Theory, Cultural Studies." Critical Digital Studies.
     Eds. Arthur Kroker and Marilouise Kroker. University of Toronto
     Press, 2008. Web.
     http://books.google.com/books?id=2MCAp3mhdlgC&lpg=PP1
     &vq=Haraway&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Selected Haraway Piece

I tried to figure out everyone's email address, but that didn't work so I'll follow Dena and Neil's lead and call out the article I selected on my blog. So, I'll be looking at "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies."

Old Games, New Experience

This doesn't really have to do with augmented reality or what we discussed in class, but rather the first-person Tetris game linked to in the class blog.

I could have commented on the blog post, but I wanted to include some inline images. So, game the first:

3-D Stereogram (Magic Eye) Tetris
I don't think that my screenshot helps see the effect, but this is basically a magic eye poster version of Tetris. You've got to focus in a strange way so you can see actual pieces falling. I couldn't play very long because I had to sit in a weird position at my desk in order to reach the keyboard and maintain the Magic Eye effect.

And game two:

gnop
It's pong, but be the ball instead of the paddle. You have to control the pong ball through a series of pong screens that have more or less difficult paddles.

Question Mark and the Mysterians

The assignment for this week is to select a passage from one of the four articles we read this week, but I think I may end up drawing on Bell's article to supplement my argument against a passage from "Against Virtual Community." First off, I'll say that there are some issues that are brought up in the article that I don't completely disagree with, but as far as the main thrust of the article goes, I have to disagree with his assessment of virtual communities.

The portion of the article I want to look at is a few pages long, but I think I distill this. In a series of paragraphs from pages 230 and 231, Robins basically attempts to invalidate or argue against the idea of virtual communities (or "virtual culture") by positioning virtual communities not as spaces for meaningful intentional interaction or an effort to truly make the world smaller, but as nothing more than common places of escape in which individuals are trying to get away from dealing with the other. While Robins does not say that a community requires engagement with the other, he certainly uses the passage(s) from page 230 and 231 to cast doubt on the validity of virtual communities and the "virtual communitarians'" espoused goal of removing or limiting the impact of physical space in one-to-one or one-to-many, interactions with (each) other. The idea of "defeating" space is questioned and it is argued that physical/geographical space may be "gone" in one direction, but has grown in the other by separating from the real world. For example, one might be conceptually closer to a group on the other side of the world, but one's physical neighbor is further away than ever before.

His assessment of avoiding the other is fine; I completely see where he is coming from. As Bell ("Webs as Pegs") notes, people in virtual communities tend to self-select their communities and engage with people who share interests with them. It makes sense, kids do this in elementary through high school and we continue to do it in college by joining certain clubs or selecting majors that suit our preferences, and this, ideally, puts us in a physical world of like minded individuals. It is not as if in the physical world we MUST engage with everyone. This is where I start to diverge with Robins and his assessment. The idea that distance related to physical space is growing with increased closeness to virtual space is flawed. I argue that the space between my neighbor and I is vast no matter what if we don't share common interests. We can talk about this or that, but if we don't really share interests or get along, then the distance with/in the physical world is still present and practically insurmountable. Am I close to my neighbor and in the same community? I suppose. However, if I am not actively a part of that community what good is it? How is "escaping" that space and "retreating" to a virtual community lessening my connection with the physical when the connection is already superficial or even tenuous? Whether I am in the virtual community or not, my level of closeness with the physical world is not necessarily affected. I propose that virtual communities and space potentially afford an opportunity to interact and possibly uncover new unexplored links between an individual and physical world. This strengthened bond may not be created without exploring virtual communities. Even if one goes into virtual space to escape and simply avoid the other, again, it does not change the relationship to the physical world. I would argue that someone in that situation has already disengaged from that physical community and that space is lost either way. So, virtual communities in and of themselves aren't these home wreckers of physical relationships, but just another place to explore either good or bad.

I suppose one could keep pushing this out further and reach a point where they say "Increased time in virtual spaces causes a withdrawal from physical space in one generation and that filters down to the next and so on until we're all in these virtual "pods" and we don't interact with our physical communities." Ok, but how does that change society? I can't say, but I don't think it leads to the collapse of the world because our interactions have shifted from context A to context B. Will it be different? Of course. However, I'm certain that humanity and global societies will successfully adapt to the shift like generations before have dealt with writing, urbanization, the phone, etc.

[Edit: So, I added some more stuff after the jump, but it is basically the same as above just worded differently and using a different context... And I ramble on about Amish people and rain.]