RE: [-empyre-] semiomorphic functionality

["Troy Innocent" <troy@iconica.org>]

Hi Dave,
Thankyou for your comments, apologies for the delay in response (re:plaything).

First of all, some general comments on the assimilation of 'semiotic morphism'
type 'cultural logic'.

I would suggest that this is linked to the evolution of what may be described
as  digital media language. I have always argued for digital media that
uses its 'natural forms' and 'endemic structures' in order to communicate.
So, with increased literacy in this 'language' new forms of communication
emerge. So, simulation, gameplay and interface are able to communicate in
unique ways that are not possible in other media.

A simulation can demonstrate the physics, light & natural phenomena of an
environment. Gameplay can create situations where the player must perform
within a set of constraints, therefore being actively involved. Information
is filtered and reconstructed through interface. In all these examples,
the underlying system is equally as important in the communication process
as its representation.

>
>I'm wondering if you can talk a little more about Semiomorph, and/or about
>the cultural logic in which this game participates. For example, towards
>the
>end of your article, you write, "Semiomorph draws attention to the shift
>between the real and the virtual by accentuating 'artefacts' or errors,
the
>sound glitches and aberrant visual patterns which are unintended
>side-effects of the algorithms used to construct virtual worlds." What
is
>it
>about these aberrations that draw attention to the shift? Why is it
>important to draw attention to this?

In part this is a reaction against the quest for highly realistic modes
of representation in games and virtual worlds. In relation to my comment
earlier about 'natural forms and endemic structures' - Semiomorph tries
to create a space that uses this strategy to create a space that is more
natural (in terms of electronic space) than a simulation of 'natural' than
a realistic landscape of hills, grass and sky. There is nothing wrong with
realism in virtual worlds, but there are many other possibilities.

In demonstrating the limits of the system to represent reality (through
'artefacts' and errors) then the player becomes more aware of the simulation,
and therefore make it the focus of analysis and reflection. By removing
the expectation of these worlds to be 'realistic' it opens them up to a
wider range of possibilities. The potential for these worlds to actualise
more abstract concepts or alternative worlds, such as being in a space that
can morph and shift between different systems of representation. This could
be described as the 'symbolic made real' - as the simulation of abstract
spaces still 'feels real', but at the same time the player is constantly
reminded that it is not.

I would hope also that by understanding how the models and understandings
we use to construct virtual worlds ('the algorithms used to contruct virtual
worlds', the constraints, rules, assumptions etc.) then a better understanding
of how they construct meaning can be determined. The model or virtual world
becomes a vehicle of communication in itself, seperate to the 3d models,
sound files, animations, textures etc. that have their own (albeit connected)

systems of signification.

Troy.

>
>I enjoyed reading your article. From my own interest in contemporary writing
>studies, I read your contribution across the work of procedural/algorithmic
>writers in the mid-century and more recent contributions to grammatological
>models of writing.
>
>cheers,
>
>Dave Rieder
>
>_______________________________________________
>empyre forum
>empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>http://www.subtle.net/empyre


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