The Alienation Effect in Violent Videogames and the 'Problem' of Serious Play

Jason Farman "The Alienation Effect in Violent
Videogames and the Problem of Serious Play" What social issues will video game developers and consumers be dealing with as this gap gets closer and closer?

There is absolutely no doubt that modern gaming has created some serious social issues, and the future does hold some curious sociological changes as interactive gaming gets closer to reality. However, the alarmist speculation that comes from Jason Farman is woefully misinformed. He talks about what effect theatre can have on people when you take away immersion elements, resulting in a more critical audience. I think it is a bit absurd to try to fight the human desire for immersion in a story. The main thing different with today's video game from the rest of the media we've consumed over the years is the interactive element. The question is whether the interactive element combined with full digital immersion could alter our understanding of the real world. I think this is a legitimate concern when the way we actually interact with video games moves beyond controllers, and we experience full immersion. Currently I think the use of controllers and the limited effects of screens does not pose a threat to misunderstanding the
differences between the virtual and reality.

For all the discussion of an interface-less interface, we would need exactly that for us in the virtual world to allow such a phenomena to occur. The real dangerous video games we hear about people losing their lives to these days utilize simple game design principles that bring out the obsessive and collector qualities in us. There may be some cases of trying to live through video games, but this same sort of thing can be seen through social networking and MUCKs. Even then, the people trying to conduct lives through the internet still usually recognize the difference between actions online and in the real world. It certainly isn't healthy for people to lose their lives to video games and online personas, but it doesn't pose an actual danger to larger society.

The Venus Project/ "Resource Based" Economy

(Seriously, Monorails?)^
The Venus Project and the concept of a "Resource Based" economy

I've heard it said politics isn't a battle of what's ideal, but what is possible. I have this view point not out of Skepticism, (although I can be a Skeptic, many in my generation are) but of what is practical. A complete reformatting of our economy from the ground up simply couldn't happen here. So many issues would arise from destroying entire life's savings to the destabilization of economy. Yes, our economic system is fairly unstable at the moment, cycling constantly between boom and busts after Industry bubbles form and break. However, I do believe when there is proper taxation and stronger oversight and regulation the capitalistic system, it could still work to benefit all. A resource based economy is quite similar to just a larger scale of the gold standard. Arguably it is a better basis for money than gold, as resources actually do have practical value. However it fails to account for the value of human and mechanical labor, which makes up the vast majority of all major economies. I think GDP could be an accurate measure of our actual economy if we completely reformatted the federal reserve (and integrate it with the government), stopped printing money, fixed Wall Street and the Finance Industry, and started knocking out debt whilst fighting inflation. It's a lot of things to do, but I think such high minded, idealistic concepts that do away with human centric economy (which is absurd) arises out of a disillusionment with money.

Economic politics aside, the concept behind the Venus project seems to be with the best intentions, but the aesthetic is ludicrous. It looks as if some fungineer from Disney tried to design a tacky futureworld city back in the 1960's. The concept isn't bad, but the rootshock, linearity, and lack of diversity in the layout and design of the buildings would make it a breeding ground for poverty. Brazilia had a futuristic efficient layout when it was built, but it resulted it large masses of unused land and huge bouts of poverty.
I am quite passionate about the politics behind city design every since I took an Urbanization class here at Tech. This class taught me the four major points of successful city design: Mixed Use of buildings, short city blocks, concentration of people, and a diversity of aged buildings. This city fails to deliver on efficiency of space (although it does have an efficient concept for city services: trash, sewer, etc.), short city blocks, mixed use, and the all important older buildings. I would say that we need a good reason to build up a new city, especially in dire economic times as these. We certainly couldn't do this to any existing cities, and there is a real question whether that city layout could actually work. The implication behind the Venus Project being that if we test this out, that city design could create the social change desired. (admittedly Zeitgeist was all over the place about their concept of human psychology and how to motivate it differently) Even if you create the test city and somehow achieve a complete reformatting of the economy, people will still game the system. There is way to much trust in human nature on behalf of the project, and a bit of naiveté about the complexity of human behavior.

Hope, Change, and Modern Graphic Design

The aesthetic history of the Obama "Hope" Poster definitely has roots in Japanese print style. Perhaps also a sort of comic book aesthetic. I think that our perception of epic characters has shifted in modern times to the more flat shaded, heavy outlines look. This sort of vector art seems more timeless than the swooping line sand details of yesteryear. My favorite example of this is the timelessness of the ABC logo. A very simple circle with a future styled san serif font. The same elements can be seen the the curves and colors of the Obama poster. Especially the font choice for hope. There sort of elements that heavily use negative space help create a sort of epic feel, often times an underground feel of a figure to rally behind.

The copyright implications vary a bit here. The situation definitely shows that Shepard Fairey's moves were of questionable morality. However I believe part of the burden of copyright and creative commons lies with the photographer. The internet will always be free game unless specified otherwise. There does need to be a certain degree of alteration or presentation (in the case of Andy Warhol or Marcel Duchamp) for it to be considered an independent art piece. While that is largely subjective and left to interpretation, I think there is a reasonable point between complete nonsense and artistic initiative.

The Message is Hope. As well as many other things…He is the new american flag (kind of like the hip logo he has of the O with the stripes going into it.) These elements are incorporated into his actually being, the implication that he literally defined by this message. There is much to be said that he represents the new school, with a heavy theme of change. His concept of changes, I think, is to make a mature government that can make fair compromise. The poster definitely reflects the candidate Obama, however the president is a different deal. In my opinion, I still see that his ideals are there but his desire for bipartisanship and progress at the same time has forced him to compromise time and time again. He seems to think that if we reached out enough across the aisle he could find middle ground, but often this has lead to deals that are horridly detrimental, often passing bills that are much more damaging than they are progressive. I think he has a little too much faith in the government's ability to compromise, and is terrible at striking fair deals with the other side. The government will always be split between these parties and ideals, and it will always be a massive battle to get things passed, and There will ALWAYS be people (And corporations) who are dissatisfied and will resist new legislation. You can't always make the other side happy, in the words of Bill Maher "Obama should take a note from Bush, sometimes you got to have cojones and make things happen" Ultimately Obama has made a lot of change happen, but for every shard of hope through new legislation (Healthcare, DADT, etc.) there is plenty of bad change to stomp on it (Bailouts, Corporate Personhood, and Corporate welfare via Subsidizing)

I just hope that as campaign season rolls around, Obama can use what he has learned about realistic governing and mix in a new wave of progressivism that is desperately needed in a time when the Distribution of Wealth in the US is comparable to 3rd world countries.

Can Civilization and Nature Coexist?

"Civilization isolates all of us, ideologically and physically, from the source of all life - nature"

The DJ Spooky article certainly drifts a good bit, as I said like free form jazz. It seems to be the guy's mindset. His emphasis on the importance of nature and being in tune with that music does make sense to a certain degree. He suggests we should use our technology to help us "reconnect" with nature, his example being the WTC sound project and his work converting the sound of nature into sampling. In a way we do constantly 'sample' from nature all the time, we've looked to it for inspiration in art all the time. He seems to insinuate that the internet is like the massive archive we can 'sample' for human creations and ideas. Once again this is a smart metaphor, nature and the internet have this in common (even though nature is archived only by it's process of natural selection.)


If his goal was to raise awareness of the importance of our connection to nature, (which is indeed critical as many massive environmental issues from oil to bees is intimately tied to our survival as a race) then yes his suggestions are relevant. However, he seems to just be proposing that we do what we have always done. Draw inspiration from nature! Honestly a big part of art is to shake us out of the disillusioning isolation that is everyday modern life, and art is an opportunity to remind of our natural roots. However architecture, city planning, and environmental progressives also play an important role. This quote demonizes civilization, when civilization is one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. Sure, it has lead to pollution, isolation, and a myriad of other issues. Humanity is about building and progressing, it is in our own nature! The world we have created isn't simply built on convenience and comfort(although some skeptics would argue to the contrary), we are creators. While artist are well known (from music to painting) to be the key creative creators to help preserve natural roots, that role is also the job of our planners, architects, and many other creative types. They also should work to help blend human society back with nature without compromising human needs. A fantastic example of this can be found in Corbusier's city planning or Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural genius. DJ Spooky is basically emphasizing a theme to remind us of nature, but to really bring it into daily life you have to physically change the landscape. We are a smart and ambitious civilization, and we can find a way to make this work if we can just break the somewhat distinctly American culture of inflexibility and NIMBY-ism (Not In My BackYard, usually found in Nuclear Power debates but that's a different issue.)


I think that civilization and nature aren't polar opposites as presented in the quote, if anything that is an example of the speaker's own human centric thinking. Our civilization is built with the tools and supplies we find in nature, so it is still in essence a part of it. It's really just important to insure we still see nature everyday as a reminder of where we are from, and learn to design and build around that fact

Government vs. Internet (The Brawl in Cyberspace)

What power should governments have over the internet, if any?

The opportunity for abuses of power by the government with the internet are very vast. Considering that the internet is the ultimate forum for free speech, tampering with the internet via censorship and control of access is a violation of free speech rights. We addressed a part of this in the last post, whether the internet is a human right. My response being that if the technology and access is there, then restricting it is indeed a violation of that right.
Often advances to control and pass regulatory legislation regarding the internet are done under the banner of opening a forum for capitalism.

The Communication Decency Act was one of the first example of this, a very absurd attempt at regulating the internet back in 97. Today, Net Neutrality being one of the top issues as the bill comes up over and over again. The concept that your ISP could control what you access on the internet is such a massive danger to free speech, and a massive opportunity to capitalize by major corporations. Thankfully the EFF has rallied the tech savvy groups to protest such a move every time the bill comes up in the House. Every time it has been shot down, despite having some of the more poorly informed senators representing the people of the internet (ie. Ted Stevens and "the series of tubes")

Recently we've seen the birth of data capping among Comcast internet networks in some states. Once again this is a slippery slope (currently the cap is set very high at something around 200 GB.) Right now people will have to pay if they download/ upload too much through their internet (right now only people who download an absurd amount of movies and such are at risk.) We've seen this capping at Virginia Tech as well, a pseudo response to what they perceive to be examples of illegal P2P activity. (Granted Data capping is not uncommon as we see it often with smart phone 3 and 4G networks. However the justification is the cost of making and maintaining these networks)

In foreign countries the examples abound of governments blatantly censoring or outright shutting down the internet for it's citizenry. The concept is not surprising because the internet is a great opportunity to get the word out about abusive governments, as well as spreading new ideas that are dangerous to the powerful heads of state. The US thankfully has been fairly good about keeping the internet free, but it has been a very real struggle to maintain that. In less free countries it is not surprising that the civilians don't have the ability to fight against these overreaching moves by their own governments. That's why "hacktivists" have a responsibility to reach out to these people help provide them a means to fight back at least in cyberspace via private publishing and file sharing. There are some obvious things the government should intervene on: violations of copyright, piracy in some formats, etc. However free speech should never be on the chopping block.

Internet Empowerment

Do you feel empowered by the internet?

The concept of empowerment by the internet really is no different from any other tool. The computer itself is tool of empowerment, as are the programs on it. Without advances in 3D software development, I wouldn't have pursued an art degree. The tools on my computer give me the ability to make the art I want to make. In the same means the internet empowers me to connect to friends, post my works, and learn new things.

Yes, it is true that the internet is an absolutely integral part of my life. I use it constantly to learn new things, communicate, and work. Empowerment clearly comes with the internet, among many other things. It is truly a great tool for fast tracking the advancement of knowledge and humanity. The censorship we see in the less free parts of the world is not at all surprising, as the internet provides the opportunity to learn and organize. It truly is a tool of empowerment, and while it has been used to spread ignorance, the truth often wins out if you look in the right places.

It's no doubt that the internet has empowered me in many ways, and it is certainly true that it is a tool for empowerment in struggling 3rd world countries. My question is for all that it does and has done to change the world, is it a human right to have access to it? As powerful as it is, the internet is still a tool, just like the computer, a car, a cell phone, etc. It would fall under an implement of another human right: the right to learn. Education was primarily done through analog formats such as books, but there is real opportunity to fight biased writers and euro-centric thinking by using the internet. I think it could certainly be listed as a critical need that people below the poverty level don't have access to. (like food, running water, cars)

Sherry Levine- Fantasy, Reality, and Addiction

In what ways has building and communicating through online profiles changed you personally?

Do you think that online communities and role play have helped us more (in terms of self reflection and growing) or hurt us more (in terms of addiction to fantasy and disconnect from reality)?

My experience with online profiles and internet communication and roleplay devices over the past few years have been significant. The experimentation the internet offers has really allowed me to learn more about myself and meet like minded people. I eventually met these people and maintain real world in person relationships alongside our internet communication. I think ultimately this is the benefit Sherry wanted to see happen with the internet. I think that some of the issues she warned about with MPD and the reality disconnect really manifested themselves as the internet became mainstream and we started to casually forgo in person communication even more for devices.

From what I gather from her many interviews she seems to be more about warning the harm that our connected selves is causing to society, culture, introspection, communication, and concepts of reality and privacy. She really has put emphasis on the issue of privacy, which like communication, has radically changed especially in recent years. We volunteer much more information to everyone than ever before, but even worse is the loads more specific data gathered without (or at least ignorant of) our knowledge. She said 'facebook is not free, we pay for it by volunteering our privacy' With the creation of face book connect and other applications that continue to integrate the internet into one insular circle. A lot of the creative expression and opportunity that comes with anonymity will disappear, and more importantly it will become more and more natural for us to communicate everything we do (online and off) to everyone we know. Sherry warns now we are losing two very important aspects of our humanity, the intimacy of privacy and in person communication.

As far as this question goes, I would say for all the opportunities the internet has presented in networking, we have lost quite a bit in serious human relationships. I personally know I take it too far, I communicate and meet with people primarily online, with the exception of my fellow students I've primarily reserved contact with friends in person to the weekend only. When Sherry talks about taking a step back and re-evaluating what the machines are for before we get too sucked in, it is all to relevant to geek culture. We have seen time and time again that geek culture in usually the predecessor to mainstream, and this very issue of further disconnectedness is spreading to regular people. I think she wants us to view all the new communication technology as a means to an end, instead of the end to a means.