Spore-ality

The "long zoom" is a topic I find myself pondering quite frequently. Educational programs on the Discovery channel about the universe have always fascinated me, and I think this is because I really just can't fully process the scale of it. Will Wright, a video game designer, is creating a game called Spore that takes place on a universe-size scale. In his eyes, Wright says he believes that "the game deserves to be seen as a work of art first and foremost, a way of seeing and making sense of the world." This is a fascinating way to look at a video game. With so many video games being labeled as destructive and time-wasting, Spore taking on the identity of a work of art is unheard of, especially when thinking of the game as a combination of scientific theories and entertainment.

What makes this game so unique is the idea that you can create any creature your imagination can come up with and send him out into the universe to try and survive. Establishing new homes on different planets, flying spaceships through the cosmos, interacting with other creatures in the game; their are no limits to the possibilities. Wright describes it as "the computer as an amplifier of your imagination." In a society where creativity and imagination have fallen by the wayside to games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty, this opens up a whole new realm of an experience that is both educational and addicting.

Wright says the beauty of Spore lies in the fact that it is "massively single player." Most games that are popular right now rely on other players logged in to a common network that can interact with each other. Spore allows you to be with other creatures that people have created, but they are fully automated. Your character is out there on his own, not at the mercy of the whim of another player. What makes this so "massively single player" is the powers of 10 train of thought. The scale to which your creature lives is similar to the scale in which we as humans live. The game instills a sense of power because we have seen the scale of the universe in which the game takes place, but because of the scale, it can, in a way, make players feel insignificant.

In our digital culture, the universality of this game is what is going to take it to new heights. Players of all ages can enjoy the game equally, and for different reasons. Spore shows us the "fragility of life, connection between micro and macro scales, complex ecosystems and food webs, the impact of new technology on social systems," and all these aspects culminate into a very real experience. The long zoom perspective is impossible for us to fully grasp, but it is important for us to give it our best shot.

Art can be a manipulative tool, but what constitutes something as art? In Victor Burgin's essay Art, common sense and photography, he investigates the meanings people construe to art. He gives an example of people questioning cultures different from their own. Why is it that in America, we don't question things like a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy. In other cultures, it may be completely acceptable to walk into a store wearing nothing but pants and buy whatever you like. It is just the way things are, so we don't question it. This can be a problem when thinking in the arena of art. "Art with an ideological slant can be manipulative," Burgin says. If someone does not take a critical stance when viewing a work of art or a photograph with an intended message of ideology, then they themselves can adopt the philosophy as their own. In terms of photography, it seems that it would be difficult for someone to construe meanings out of something that is simply a reproduction of what the eye can see. However, a photo is a complex of signs used to communicate a message. "While the picture before us may have depended on luck for its existence, it does not depend upon luck, or talent, for its meaning." An image can carry a large number of meanings, especially when it is parodied with linguistics. This is especially apparent in advertising. Most advertisements contain some sort of visual basis, be it a photograph or a work of art, along with words for anchorage. A cigarette ad depicting a lovely mountain scene with a river running through the valley suggests much more than what is actually behind the product they are selling. A cigarette may be described as "cool as a mountain stream," but this statement is deceptive. Nowhere on the advertisement would the company like to put a slogan such as "deadlier than car accidents" even though that is another aspect of the product. The ad can "suggest pleasure while rejecting that of unwholesomeness," as Burgin says. Photographs and other forms of art, to put it plainly, need to be taken with a grain of salt. Burgin sums up his essay with the words "We need to treat the photographic image as an occasion for skepticism and questioning, not as a source of hypnosis." It is easy to be captivated by the beauty of an image, but beauty alone is not justice for unwilling persuasion.

Big Brother: Panopticism

The idea of the Panopticon is fascinating as much as it is disturbing. From the perspective of a sane human being, being enclosed in such a structure would certainly challenge the person to maintain sanity. Constantly knowing that at any moment, someone could be watching you while you are unable to watch back. As terrible as this situation may seem, digital advancements have enabled high forces all over the world to engage in the practice of panopticism. "our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance" says Foucault. With closed circuit cameras being installed in major cities all over the world, how is this different from being subjected to the Panopticon? At any moment, an employee of the state could be watching every move you make. Some cities even have the ability to speak through a loud speaker by the camera to penalize wrong-doers. For many reasons, this sounds like a good idea. The only reason the FBI was able to track down the Times Square car bomber was through CCTV cameras installed on the street corner. But how far are we willing to let this kind of surveillance go to give up our right to privacy? These CCTV cameras do not extend behind closed doors, but there is still surveillance thanks to digital technology. Every time I go on the Internet, a record is made of where I went, what I did there, and how long I was there for. With all the social networking sites available, there is no reason that if the powers that be were so inclined, they could find out any little detail of my life. This type of tracking was no possible before our societies transition to a digital culture. People were so fast to embrace all these new technologies when they first came out, but now many are questioning whether or not this really was for the best. Digital culture has changed the way we live, but it has also taken away some of our privacy. Foucault says prisoners of the Panopticon were like actors constantly visible on a stage presented to the guard in the tower. A lot of similarities can be drawn between panopticism and our countries current surveillance capabilities. All of this surveillance is simply a means to ensure the hierarchy of power. One who does no wrong is still subject to abuses of this power, and as we have seen from instances like the school in Pennsylvania who gave out laptops installed with web cams to students and proceeded to watch the students at home, things can get ugly. Privacy is a basic right, and although digital culture has been a blessing, for the most part, privacy has been lost.

Panopticon, The Big Brother of Prisons

Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon Prison, may well have been born from the idea of syndics during the black plague in Europe. Michel Focault explains how this system was put into place and how it worked when the plague was discovered in a population in the opening paragraph of his essay “Panopticism”.

“First, a strict spatial partitioning: the closing of the town and its outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death , the killing of all stray animals; the division of the town into distinct quarters, each governed by an intendant. Each street is placed under the authority of a syndic, who keeps it under surveillance; if he leaves the street, he will be condemned to death. On the appointed day, everyone is ordered to stay indoors; it is forbidden to leave on pain of death. The syndic himself comes to lock the door of each house from the outside; he takes the key with him and hands it over to the intendant of the quarter…” (61).

The idea behind the lockdowns was fear and threat of death. Syndics may not have even been present during some of the times when stepping outside was forbidden, but for fear of being killed, the townsfolk never took the chance to venture outside to find out whether or not the syndics were actually there. This is the same idea behind Bentham’s Panopticon Prison, which is essentially the “Big Brother” of all prisons.

The prison is described as having “at the periphery, and annular building; at the centre, a tower; this tower is pierced with wide windows that open onto the inner side of the ring; the perihperic building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole width of the building; they have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding to the windows of the tower, the other on the outside, allows the light to cross the cell from one end to the other” (63). The idea was to place inmates in all of the cells and light them, while only putting one watchman in the tower, whom the inmates cannot see. It is the theory that the constant light and fear of being exposed will prevent bad behavior and actually keep the inmates in their cells because they have no idea how many watchmen or people can see their actions. It was the same idea with the syndics in the time of the plague. Townsfolk simply listened to the rules for fear of being seen, even if they couldn’t see the syndics, they never wanted to take the chance that they were there and would catch them sneaking out. As Focault describes it, “Visibility is a trap” (64).

Society's Panopticon

The concepts that eventually led to the creation of the Panopticon prison may have had their origins in the era of the black plague. When the plague was seen in a town, the residents would be forbidden to evacuate – with the consequence of death if disobeyed. Besides that, the residents would often be subjected to a lockdown, in which they were not allowed to go outside their own homes. Syndics kept watch over every street, and anyone they caught trying to venture outside their house was killed. The syndics may not have been on constant guard during these lockdowns, but the townspeople could not risk taking a step out of their homes for fear that a syndic would happen to be watching.

This strategy of basing fear on the notion of being watched is exactly how Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon prison worked. The prison was designed so that the levels of cells ran in a ring around a large tower where the guards were. The prisoners would be clearly seen from the tower, but, using backlighting, the effect was created of the prisoners being unable to see clearly whether or not anyone was actually in the tower. As Foucault states in his essay “Panopticism,” the prisoner “is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication.” The prisoners, in this position, became very conscious of a lack of personal power. In the Panopticon, the prisoners never needed chains, bars, or heavy locks to keep them docile and in their cells – the threat of being watched was enough. This, along with a decreased need for guards, made the Panopticon prison very efficient.

The Panopticon design relates to today’s society in that people often are under some kind of surveillance. With today’s technology, cameras have gotten smaller and more precise, and images are heavily relied upon. Our computers act also in a way that is similar to the Panopticon; most of us have been warned that our activities online are being monitored – we all see this when we get pop-up adds on our computers advertising items that we had previously searched for.

Is this surveillance causing a similar response as that in the Panopticon prison? Would people behave differently if they weren’t reminded that their actions may be recorded? There are positive benefits that come out of the knowledge that people are being watched. Stores that set out security cameras where people are sure to see them tend to have fewer shoplifters – the cameras remind the customers that they are seen. But, are there negative consequences, also? Our country places much emphasis on being seen. Most U.S. citizens carry at least one form of identification with their picture on it. In a way, it seems like your picture proves your existence as a citizen. Authorities frequently use pictures to identify people; at routine traffic stops, the police officer will first ask to see a driver’s license, and will then check the picture to make sure you are who you are supposed to be. As a citizen, your face is in various records so that you can be identified. This is not as extreme as the Panopticon prison, but sometimes it is disconcerting to know that you are always seen.

Wikipedia the Network

In Radan Martinec and Teho van Leeuwen’s article “The Language of New Media Design: Theory and Practice”, they lay out the five website structures that are often seen on today’s internet. They include the given and new, ideal and real, star, tree, and network. Though some are more commonly used than others, certain websites may even choose to use one or more of these layouts together to create a complex and visually interesting site for their visitors.

The network is the most complicated of the designs, though it may incorporate some of the other layouts within its links and informational pages. It is designed to present the view with as much information as it can, which is not always centralized around a starting point and does not always follow linear hierarchies. It instead connects bits of information that are related to one another via links, which connects that information to still more related content, in an seemingly unending web of linked connections.

Wikipedia, as we discussed in our webcam lecture, is a good example of the network layout. It consists of not only the network models, but also the star model on its opening page, which features a fractured globe surrounded by language links for the viewer to choose from. This centralized image surrounded by the links forms a bond between the image and the things around it. It represents the site itself and all the languages it can be accessed in, even without explaining this connection.

When someone accesses a piece of information on the site itself, say they are researching ponies and horses, a linear model page is brought up, with words highlighted in blue. These are the links that define a network. They connect the immediate search page to other related information that may be explained further on another page. For example, one may research ponies and find a link to a certain sport in which ponies are participants such as polo. From the page on polo, a link may appear to the British Monarchy who are avid polo players, and take the viewer to a page about the British Monarchy. This is the essential function of the network, to connect pages to display the greatest amount of information in not always a linear, centralized or hierarchical structure.

Reality Isn't Always Real

In Norman Bryson’s “The Natural Attitude”, he quotes an old anecdote, which says:

“The contemporaries and rivals of Zeuxis were Timanthes, Androcydes, Eupompus, Parrhasius. This last, it is recorded, entered into a competition with Zeuxis. Zeuxis produced a picture of grapes so dexterously represented that birds began to fly down to eat them from the painted vine. Whereupon Parrhasius designed so lifelike a picture of a curtain that Zeuxis, proud of the verdict of the birds, requested that the curtain should now be drawn back and the picture displayed. When he realized his mistake, with a modesty that did him honor, he yielded up the palm, saying that whereas he had managed to deceive only birds, Parrhasius had deceived an artist” (Bryson)

This, in essence, sums up his article very nicely. He focuses on how painters, like the two rivals in the story, long strove to outdo each other by presenting the world as we saw it in everyday life, and whoever could paint reality the most perfectly was often yielded to by their rivals as the best painter. But, as the centuries stretched on, an emphasis was placed on painters such as Picasso, who didn’t paint reality, and if he did, it was a skewed view which made interpretations of the image different from that of a painting presenting a landscape.

All of this adds up to how, if images are credited with attempting to present reality, how we often give them great sway in society, how we take what we see as what we get. This is especially prevalent in tabloids or gossips magazines. If a celebrity is seen with a sweatshirt that perhaps has a bulge in the front, they are determined to be pregnant, even without finding out the facts, because images are credited with representing reality. There can be a lot of issues with seeing images as total reality, as one can imagine. And there is also the artist or journalist’s influence to be considered. Perhaps the photo was taken from a specific view to get across the message the taker wanted the viewer to see, not the actual reality.

Though the artists of the renaissance, like those in the anecdote, strove to outdo one another by presenting reality as real as they could reproduce, images today do not always strive for the same ideal. They are often influenced by the motives of the creator, and though are credited with presenting reality, they more than often do not.