[-empyre-] symbolic made real

Troy Innocent <troy@iconica.org> · Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:42:45 +1000

Hi again,
A realtime interactive 3D simulation of a pipe is not a pipe either :)
In relation to Toms comments: By their nature as coded systems of 
representation, digital games are sympathetic to analysis in terms of 
semiotics. There are a variety of semiotic theories that may be applied 
to digital games as virtual worlds - eg. biosemiotics (communication 
and signification in living systems) and zoosemiotics (animal 
behaviours). If you are modelling these kinds of behaviours in a game 
then these formalised systems are extremely useful.
Post-structuralism may provide some answers -Derrida's deconstruction 
and Baudrillard's hyperreality are precursors to what has occurred 
since in the digital realm.
However, I am not suggesting there is a realm of the symbolic that is 
seperate to the real, but rather that the digital games blend these two 
into an interconnected hybrid form that is both symbolic and real 
simultaneously. Here some thoughts within the context of more specific 
examples:
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) such as 
EverQuest work with the highly symbolic universe of Role Playing Games 
and manifest these in a large scale persistent world. The game world is 
coded with and is shared across thousands of players. It may be part of 
their lived, real experience but it is also a computer program running 
a world with its own logic. In order to be successful in the game the 
players must learn this logic and think in terms of that (symbolic) 
world.
Game mods highlight an important part of the structure of digital 
games. They demonstrate the seperation of the underlying code or logic 
of a game and its representation. The same gameplay can be represented 
in a wide variety of different ways (ranging from copies of the 
original game through to experimental game art) through the replacement 
of sounds, textures, models and the creation of new levels. The code or 
logic of the game may also be modifed by software hacks, which take 
this further. However, the process is still one of mapping different 
representations onto an existing symbolic world.
Joseph Goguen has suggested the idea of an algebraic semiotics - the 
mathematical description of semiotic relationships. This means that 
semiotic relationships are defined mathematically and can be 
parameterised, translated, generated, and generally manipulated using 
mathematical processes. In this case the starting point of the process 
is a symbolic world that can then be transformed and restructured into 
new forms. Each abstract, semiotic world generated by this system is 
made perceptible through its simulation in a virtual world.
I have also experimented with this concept in a game art project, 
entitled Semiomorph. In this game the player shifts the representation 
of world between text, diagram, icon and simulation using the idea of 
semiotic morphism - 'a "systematic translation between sign systems" in 
which signified messages can be mapped onto various signifiers, 
multiplying and mutating instances of semiosis. The term captures the 
shape-shifting plasticity of relationships between sound, image, text, 
and users in virtual worlds; the interactions through which meaning is 
made, transformed and remade dynamically and synaesthetically in real 
time.'
Troy.
-= Hi =-
I hear you there Tom . . Cultural Studies 101, read Empire of the 
Signs, due

Thursday* . .

But it is clearly a relevent discussion. Games and gaming technology, 
if

thats what we are talking about?, almost fit too neatly as an 
explanation or

exploration of the relationships between sign systems and the so called

real. As if we're going over the obvious, or missing something . . . 
but

there is more to the gaming / game developing experience, and its

interesting that while there are still layers of the less abstracted 
and the

more symbolic within gaming environments - a simulated street scene , 
a HUD,

a pick-up, a player list and their stats, a map with perhaps a

non-perspectival visual system, various entities and AI, and chat 
might all

exist on the screen at the same time for instance - they can't help 
but be

events within a universe thats increasingly trying to emulate what is

immediately recognisable to us, but is inevitably distinct.

I found The Getaway quite a positive step towards compressing the broad

extents of the game world information into the perspectival visual 
layer -

it worked to increasingly animate the world, giving potent reason to a 
blood

stained suit or a car indicator. But thats a direction that rides on 
film

while neglecting game specific potentialities . .
But I would like to follow Tom's lead and ask that we clarify the 
objects

and experiences we're talking about. Troy has mentioned 3D game 
technology

and how the immersive representation colludes with the fact that a game

world is developed around the agency of a body - Eugenie talks about 
VR,

though I think she refers to the same examples as Troy . . . would it 
not be

productive to extend discussions into specific examples we can share?
c h a d
selectparks.net

tom@nullpointer.co.uk wrote:

Hi all,
Not too well versed in semiotic theory anymore myself (college seems 
a long

time ago:)

But I am interested in the ideas you are presenting and I was 
wondering if

you are

talking about videogames in general or if there are more specific 
examples

that you can

refer to as immersive semiotic agents/systems. I'm getting awfully 
tempted

to dig up some

baudrillard here but i'm not quite sure how post-structuralist 
thinking is

regarded or applied

to contemporary practice (In a strange way it seems kind of dated)
Best
Tom
http://www.nullpointer.co.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: <troy@iconica.org> <mailto:troy@iconica.org>
To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
<mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:47 AM
Subject: RE: (Re: [-empyre-] Holbein thread)

Hello,
Right. Many recent games use sophisticated simulations of worlds that 
embody

relationhips and situations to the player / subject / viewer. When 
engaged

in the simulation / game the player becomes part of the game. In 
terms of

the symbolic / real (discursive / material) the simulation is a sign 
system

and the player becomes a sign in that system ? the game world is quite

literally

addressing the player as an agent in the simulation. At the same 
time, the

artifice of the simulation immerses the player so that they perceive 
it

as real. This is typically through the use of depth cues, spatialised 
sound,

immediacy of feedback, realistic behaviour / physics, lighting, and 
so on.

Psychologically, the player is in that space ? it becomes their 
reality.
In this way, I would argue that electronic space can be the symbolic 
made

real. The symbolic has real affect, and is represented as a real space

through

simulation. Of course, this relies on the assertion that 'we want to

believe'

? that mediated experiences have been assimilated as natural and 
'real'

in the first place.
So, electronic space blurs the symbolic and the real by representing a

highly

abstract space (the logic and relations of the computer) in a 
realistic

simulation (the immersive / interactive experience). Which is one of 
the

things that makes them so special.
Troy.

hi again,
ta for the baltrusaitis reference - it's a classic text on 
anamorphosis.

another classic text is of course jacques lacan's chapter on 
'anamorphosis'

in 'the four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis'.
according to lacan, holbein's picture demonstrates the 
'annihilation' of

the

subject. his is a tricky argument to synopsize, but i'll try: lacan's
schema
of the subjectifying relation is very closely based around alberti's

perspective construction. his 'double dihedron' of vision 
schematizes the

way that the subject functions within the order of language and

representation. step outside this relation - i.e. step away from the
correct
point of view - and you enter the domain of the 'real', you cease to 
be
a
subject as such. this, in a nutshell, is what holbein's picture
demonstrates
- so says lacan.
within lacan's argument, then, the border between the discursive and 
the

material is recast as the border between the symbolic and the real - 
and

it

is not subject to blurring. you're either a subject under the gaze 
(i.e.

a

subject in/of discourse), or you're nothing at all. i think this is 
a bit

harsh, and i think holbein thinks so too, which is why i find his 
picture

so

interesting. i wouldn't go so far as to say it 'devours' the situated

subject - it simply points out that it's really tricky to 'situate'
subjects
in the first place.
from the phenomenological point of view, which is basically (as far 
as

i
understand it) what holbein's picture demonstrates, subjectivity is 
a kind

of an 'unsituated' concern by definition, an unstable mix of the 
material

AND the discursive.... which is also what we find lucidly 
demonstrated
in
a
lot of recent videogames. which is why i find them so fascinating.
later
e

on 3/10/03 8:11 AM, -empyre-owner at 
empyre-owner@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au

wrote:
vince.dziekan@artdes.monash.edu.au
Friday, 3 October
HI.
Sorry, don't want to jump in or preempt Eugenie's response, but I'd
recommend you check out:
Author:Baltrusaitis, Jurgis, 1903-
Title:Anamorphic art / by Jurgis Baltrusaitis ; translated by W. J.
Strachan.
Publisher:Cambridge [Eng.] : Chadwyck-Healey, 1977.
The idea of Renaissance, Cartesian Perspectivism containing this

'alternative' within it is an interesting position to think about 
(the

application of perspective as a technique can be considered equally
"right"
whether using it to form or inversely to deform. Somewhere along the
way,
one of those positions has become "right" and the other deemed 
"wrong").

Looking at this in this way, does this sort of soften the borders 
between

the "discursive" and the "material", as indicated in an initial
observation:

IÅve just read troyÅs first post and it looks ú interestingly ú as 
though
we¹re approaching the issue of anamorphism from two distinct angles
ú
the
discursive (troy) and the material (myself).
Thoughts?

Cheers.

Vince

(ps. I'm a colleague of Troy's  in the dept of Multimedia & Digital 
Arts
at
Monash --- so thought I'd better put in my two cents worth...)

Alan Sondheim wrote:
Can you say more about Holbein's scheme? It's almost as if his 
painting

devours architecture and the situated body. Did he do other such 
work?
Why
was this brilliance abandoned, if it was? Could his other work 
contain

secret geometries? (I realize not, but want to speculate.)
It reminds me, what you're saying, of the multiply perceived 
painting
of
Kuo Hsi -
Alan
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, eugenie wrote:

hi all,
big thank you to christina, melinda, michael and jim for inviting me
to
participate in this monthÅs discussion.
IÅve just read troyÅs first post and it looks ú interestingly ú as 
though

weÅre approaching the issue of anamorphism from two distinct angles 
ú
the
discursive (troy) and the material (myself). my interest in 
anamorphosis
is
historically based ú I arrived in the digital realm by the somewhat

roundabout route of c18th landscape aesthetics ú so IÅm going to 
begin
by
giving a bit of historical background.
anamorphosis, for me, is a way of approaching the issue of Oembodied

vision¹. the argument is simple and probably highly self evident to 
most
of
you posting to this list ú vision and thought issue from an active 
body

rather than a disembodied eye ú but itÅs also one that western 
philosophy

has traditionally had a great deal of trouble accepting.
Hans HolbeinÅs Ambassadors (1533) is a well-known example of an
anamorphic
picture and an excellent demonstration of the way that so called
Orational
perception¹ has always involved more than just the perspectival 
eye/I.
The
vanishing point and Ocorrect¹ viewing position in Holbein¹s picture 
are

clearly indicated by the precise rendering of the various 
perspectival

objects in the image. Looking from this position, the anamorphic 
skull
in
the foreground appears as nothing more than a meaningless shape. In 
order
to
see it properly, the viewer has to approach the painting and look
obliquely,
from a position on the right, about halfway up the frame.
Viewing Holbein¹s picture was a sort of play in two acts. Holbein 
was
quite
specific about the manner in which the picture should be hung: in a 
room

with two doors, each one corresponding to one of the picture¹s two
viewing
positions. In the first act, the viewer enters the room and sees the
picture
from the Ocorrect¹ point of view. Captivated by the realism of the
painted
scene, the viewer is also perplexed by the indecipherable object at 
the

bottom of the picture. Leaving by the second door, the disconcerted
viewer
casts a brief backward glance at the painting, and it is at this 
point
that
the strange object resolves itself into an image.
Traditional theories of representation have paid a lot of attention 
to
the
way the viewer is constructed as/at the OcorrectÅ point of view ú 
i.e.
as a
distanced, disembodied, monocular eye. they have had much less to 
say
about
the transient state(s) between points of view ú what IÅm calling the

Oanamorphic momentÅ. HolbeinÅs picture calls attention to those 
moments
in
the event of seeing where the viewer exceeds the Cartesianesque

configuration of the disembodied eye. It foregrounds the subject in 
its

environmental sense: a mobile, embodied agent that acts in the real 
world
of
objects. As a concept of transformation, then, anamorphosis allows 
us
to
understand subjectivity as a Odynamic¹ condition, a matter of a
constantly
changing body schema rather than a fixed body image. Holbein¹s 
little

theatre of representation, in other words, has a lot to tell us 
about
the
way we interface with virtual environments in the present dayS and 
this
is
where it links up to my current interest in videogames, and affect, 
and
the
way that we traditionally understand the history of virtuality.
wow, I¹ve run on and on. I¹ll leave it there for now.
bests
eugenie

_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre

http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger sondheim@panix.com
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre

_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre

Troy Innocent : troy@iconica.org : iconica.org

_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre

_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>> Troy Innocent : troy@iconica.org : iconica.org