[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 124, Issue 10

[Sarah Schoemann]

Hey all,

Sorry if my replies have been scant, I seem to only be receiving daily
digests of posts and several posters messages aren't appearing in the
archive for me, so its been hard to keep up!

In any case-

I do want to chime in here to say that I think its important for us to make
sure we are distinguishing between the experiences we have in academia
(whether its in publishing or workplace experiences or generally watching
the discourse in areas like game studies and media studies unfold) AND on
the other hand, the machinations of the industry and the broader culture.

Its problematic to (even accidentally) conflate the two as it ends up
making a monolith that affirms the negative commonalities between the two
while cutting out a whole swath of critical writing and creative production
that completely separate from both academia and the industry and has been
working overtime to counter the issues in both while getting very little
traction and either- I'm talking about games criticism, #altgames, DIY and
queer indie production.

Let's not forget that GamerGate was actually started as an attack against
Zoe Quinn who is basically a figure of contempt for creating a successful
Twine game. Quinn is not in a traditional way part of the "industry" she is
just guilty of gaining enough visibility to enrage fans carrying some kind
of torch for games that they consider appropriately "game-like" according
to their unknown or arbitrary standards.

Sarkeesian herself is also operating in a liminal space between mainstream
fan culture (she's essentially a YouTube celebrity) and games criticism (a
la Mattie Brice, Lana Polansky, et all). But I would suggest that more
interesting critical work is being done by people who are arguably part of
the games journalism press or who are self-styled "game critics" writing
from neither an industry nor academic perspective. I'm thinking of Leigh
Alexander or Kara Ellison and many others who have been doing sophisticated
feminist analysis with their own (more agile) time-table that has vastly
outpaced our work in academia.

Merritt Kopas is about to publish an amazing edited collection on Twine
authorship for example and was able to do that in a fraction of the time
that an academic publication covering the same thing would have taken to
produce and get out into the world. She also lacks the institutional
affiliation and attendant privilege a lot of academics take for granted but
manages to be incredibly prolific despite it.

I don't mean to detour into criticizing or denigrating the work we do as
academics, but I do think its remiss to act as if because there aren't
stacks of academic texts on these topics the work hasn't been happening. I
think I agree with Shira that a ton of progress has been made and we should
give credit where credit is due, which at present I think should go to all
the folks out there hustling like Anna Anthropy and Merritt and Mattie. Or
Kat Cross, who is an academic but also publishes in places like
Feministing.com and Bitch Magazine because she is concerned with keeping
pace with the critical work that is happening out side of more established
channels.

Frankly, this is one of the intended purposes behind creating a
non-academic, non-industry space like Different Games, because lots of work
being done by independent designers and critics is simply not legible to
institutionalized academic knowledge production. It may be legible to
practitioners who teach in design MFA programs (Robert Yang, Naomi Clarke,
Colleen Macklin, John Sharpe) but not necessarily amongst folks planted
squarely theory. As someone who sort of sits between the indie development
world and more recently academia, I think this this lack of dialogue is a
real problem.


On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:00 PM, <
empyre-request at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au> wrote:

> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
>         empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         empyre-request at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         empyre-owner at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
>
>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Welcome to Week 2 on -empyre: GAMES AND       REPRESENTATION
>       (shira chess)
>    2. Re: Welcome to Week 2 on -empyre: GAMES AND       REPRESENTATION
>       (Jen Malkowski)
>    3. Re: Welcome to Week 2 on -empyre: GAMES AND       REPRESENTATION
>       (Brenda Laurel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:12:32 -0400
> From: shira chess <shira.chess at gmail.com>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Welcome to Week 2 on -empyre: GAMES AND
>         REPRESENTATION
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CACbw9bQYe0Eu6s8iitVd++OQhtp-grg_8x001yxLNaG15Mnr9g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>
> I would like to pose a question to the other panelists and whoever
> else feels compelled to respond:
> What, exactly, do we think is the problem?
>
> All of the conversations from the last week have been approaching this
> as though there is a tangible problem (not always the same one,
> though). I think this might be a misguided perspective.
>
> Jen has suggested (and this is a fair suggestion) that the problem is
> that identity/gaming is a somewhat maligned area of inquiry. I
> certainly accept this to an extent, but I don't really see it as
> particularly more maligned than any other mode of academic studies of
> identity politics. As I had previously noted, we tend to silo
> ourselves and create otherness based on the patriarchal structure at
> the core of academia. I do not see gaming as distinctive in this, and
> really it broaches a larger problem.
>
> In terms of the original concerns of gaming and identity, we actually
> have made some -although not astounding headway. While sex is only one
> matrix to judge by, in the last 4 years the number of women in the
> gaming industry has doubled. Those numbers are tricky, I know and they
> are not startling. But they are something. I would even go as far as
> to say that it seems that other areas of diversity in the industry has
> increased.
>
> In terms of availability of a variety of games, that has increased
> substantially, too. Are those games mocked both in pop press and by
> the gaming industry? Absolutely. But they are a start and they are
> still figuring out what they want to be.
>
> In terms of considering the images of game characters in AAA gaming, I
> am (honestly) uninterested. Once again, this is not dissimilar to
> other modes of media. Game-based culture often deals with
> sexist/racist/heterosexist imagery just as film, tv, music, etc does.
> I am certainly not saying this is a good thing, but I am saying that
> it is not distinctive to game culture.
>
> And then, gamergate. Is that what we are all really talking about?
> Because that, of course, is a problem. But it is a problem that has
> historical roots that can easily be traced back to the Atari crash in
> the 80s. (In fact, a lot of GGers use this as "proof" of the problem
> with "ethics in game journalism".) Gamer culture *is* a problem but
> it's a messy problem without a clear resolution.
>
> We've been having this conversation for almost a week now, but we all
> seem to be talking about separate "problems" - so perhaps lets break
> this down a bit more.
> -shira
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Aubrey Anable
> <aubrey.anable at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> >
> > I?m really enjoying all of the contributions to this discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Brenda?s astute point about the mutually constitutive relationship
> between characters, the affordances created by the game as system, and the
> players is right on: ?Empathy or identification with the notion of the
> player-character as defined by the affordances and environment of the game
> is fundamental to the enjoyment of playing. So in my view, representation
> of identity matters, not only in terms of NPCs but also in terms of the
> players themselves.?
> >
> >
> >
> > In my previous post, I didn?t mean to suggest that I think computation
> and representation are actually separate?quite the opposite. I?m just
> struck by how some very prominent figures in game studies seem to want to
> keep them separate. TreaAndrea brought our attention to an example of this
> in Ian Bogost?s recent article in The Atlantic. In Bogost?s formulation, it
> is in systems?not representation of identities through characters?where the
> true expressive potential of games resides. One of the problems I have with
> this formulation is that it presumes that players (and their identities)
> and game creators (and their identities) are not really part of the
> system?they only interact with it. I guess I would like to see a broader
> conceptualization of ?systems? that incorporates things like identity and
> representation into how systems have expressive power.
> >
> > Aubrey Anable
> > Cinema Studies Institute
> > University of Toronto
> > 2 Sussex Ave.
> > Toronto, ON M5S 1J5
> >
> > (647) 997-0570
> > aubrey.anable at utoronto.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:27:15 -0400
> From: Jen Malkowski <malkowjc at miamioh.edu>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Welcome to Week 2 on -empyre: GAMES AND
>         REPRESENTATION
> Message-ID:
>         <CAPkjbz3rPENNz3_Dr3uL6H=KEmUTLkno25Op_m+tQW==G=
> GfRQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Shira, you?re raising some great points here. I?ll tackle one of your
> subtopics and expand on my previous implication that one problem is
> that identity and representation are somewhat maligned areas of
> inquiry in Video Game Studies. You reflect, ?I certainly accept this
> to an extent, but I don?t really see it as particularly more maligned
> than any other mode of academic studies of identity politics.?
>
> My own observations as a scholar expanding into Video Game Studies
> from Film Studies have run counter to your perception that things are
> equally bad in other disciplines. What I noticed in exploring this new
> disciplinary territory was a puzzling shortage, compared to Film
> Studies, of work on identity and representation. Film Studies is a
> discipline where explicitly feminist approaches, for example, had a
> long period of not just acceptance but dominance. To hear my more
> senior colleagues tell it, there came a point in Film Studies,
> post-Mulvey, when work that neglected to account for gender where
> relevant was openly and widely criticized, or just wasn?t accepted for
> publication. When TreaAndrea and I were beginning the *Identity
> Matters* book project, my biggest surprise was that there had not
> already been dozens of books published on these issues that would make
> our project hopelessly redundant.
>
> So why this shortage, aside from the discipline?s shorter history? One
> factor, it seems to me, is that Video Game Studies has a much stronger
> bent toward materialist approaches than related fields and
> that?counter to the spirit of Soraya?s last post?the material aspects
> of this medium have often been framed as apart from identity, creating
> a climate that hasn?t always been hospitable to the kind of work many
> of us are doing.
>
> I?m encouraged by signs of change, though, not in the abandonment of
> valuable materialist approaches, but rather in the adoption of refined
> materialist approaches that recognize the integration of identity and
> technology (e.g., at SCMS 2014?s inspiring Feminist Platform Studies
> workshop). Further, I think GamerGate and its preludes have pushed
> identity to the forefront of popular discourse on games right now and,
> in turn, that we?re seeing that interest shift the conversation in
> academic publishing, too (as evidenced to me, in part, by how many
> presses have expressed strong interest in our collection). So perhaps,
> Shira, resistance to these inquiries is waning.
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 3:12 PM, shira chess <shira.chess at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> >
> > I would like to pose a question to the other panelists and whoever
> > else feels compelled to respond:
> > What, exactly, do we think is the problem?
> >
> > All of the conversations from the last week have been approaching this
> > as though there is a tangible problem (not always the same one,
> > though). I think this might be a misguided perspective.
> >
> > Jen has suggested (and this is a fair suggestion) that the problem is
> > that identity/gaming is a somewhat maligned area of inquiry. I
> > certainly accept this to an extent, but I don't really see it as
> > particularly more maligned than any other mode of academic studies of
> > identity politics. As I had previously noted, we tend to silo
> > ourselves and create otherness based on the patriarchal structure at
> > the core of academia. I do not see gaming as distinctive in this, and
> > really it broaches a larger problem.
> >
> > In terms of the original concerns of gaming and identity, we actually
> > have made some -although not astounding headway. While sex is only one
> > matrix to judge by, in the last 4 years the number of women in the
> > gaming industry has doubled. Those numbers are tricky, I know and they
> > are not startling. But they are something. I would even go as far as
> > to say that it seems that other areas of diversity in the industry has
> > increased.
> >
> > In terms of availability of a variety of games, that has increased
> > substantially, too. Are those games mocked both in pop press and by
> > the gaming industry? Absolutely. But they are a start and they are
> > still figuring out what they want to be.
> >
> > In terms of considering the images of game characters in AAA gaming, I
> > am (honestly) uninterested. Once again, this is not dissimilar to
> > other modes of media. Game-based culture often deals with
> > sexist/racist/heterosexist imagery just as film, tv, music, etc does.
> > I am certainly not saying this is a good thing, but I am saying that
> > it is not distinctive to game culture.
> >
> > And then, gamergate. Is that what we are all really talking about?
> > Because that, of course, is a problem. But it is a problem that has
> > historical roots that can easily be traced back to the Atari crash in
> > the 80s. (In fact, a lot of GGers use this as "proof" of the problem
> > with "ethics in game journalism".) Gamer culture *is* a problem but
> > it's a messy problem without a clear resolution.
> >
> > We've been having this conversation for almost a week now, but we all
> > seem to be talking about separate "problems" - so perhaps lets break
> > this down a bit more.
> > -shira
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Aubrey Anable
> > <aubrey.anable at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> >>
> >> I?m really enjoying all of the contributions to this discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Brenda?s astute point about the mutually constitutive relationship
> between characters, the affordances created by the game as system, and the
> players is right on: ?Empathy or identification with the notion of the
> player-character as defined by the affordances and environment of the game
> is fundamental to the enjoyment of playing. So in my view, representation
> of identity matters, not only in terms of NPCs but also in terms of the
> players themselves.?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In my previous post, I didn?t mean to suggest that I think computation
> and representation are actually separate?quite the opposite. I?m just
> struck by how some very prominent figures in game studies seem to want to
> keep them separate. TreaAndrea brought our attention to an example of this
> in Ian Bogost?s recent article in The Atlantic. In Bogost?s formulation, it
> is in systems?not representation of identities through characters?where the
> true expressive potential of games resides. One of the problems I have with
> this formulation is that it presumes that players (and their identities)
> and game creators (and their identities) are not really part of the
> system?they only interact with it. I guess I would like to see a broader
> conceptualization of ?systems? that incorporates things like identity and
> representation into how systems have expressive power.
> >>
> >> Aubrey Anable
> >> Cinema Studies Institute
> >> University of Toronto
> >> 2 Sussex Ave.
> >> Toronto, ON M5S 1J5
> >>
> >> (647) 997-0570
> >> aubrey.anable at utoronto.ca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> empyre forum
> >> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> >> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
>
>
> --
> Jennifer Malkowski
> Assistant Professor of Comparative Media Studies and Film Studies
> Department of Media, Journalism, and Film
> Miami University of Ohio
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:47:42 -0700
> From: Brenda Laurel <blaurel at soe.ucsc.edu>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Welcome to Week 2 on -empyre: GAMES AND
>         REPRESENTATION
> Message-ID: <C79AB3C7-C8F8-4CAB-8E99-47CDF20B6CA2 at soe.ucsc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Shira asks the most important question here, I think. What is the problem?
> I think that Jen is right to be concerned that identity/gaming is a
> maligned area of study. When I think about the number of "secret" groups
> and "shields-up" conferences I've been engaged with, it feels as though we
> are all hiding; that in fact "feminist" or "queer" gaming gatherings are
> ALL ABOUT identity, but it's something we can't easily talk about in open
> professional or academic circles. As for the number of women in the gaming
> industry- well, that, too, is a concern. What roles are they performing?
> How comfortable is the space? Speaking with a journalist yesterday, I
> learned that in one firm at least eight women have recently left the
> profession entirely because of a hostile or sexist work environment. I
> certainly felt that throughout my career in the industry. The variety of
> games, I agree, is increasing and it's exciting to see much of it coming
> from new communities of folks who have previousl
>  y been marginalized. I hope that the new games on the edges start to
> seriously erode the grip of AAA corporations on how we define culture and
> sexuality. And I DO care about AAA games, because they set artificial norms
> for gender correctness as well as for civil interaction. I would like them
> to wither and die, but short of that, I would like for them not to be the
> only voices telling our boys what it means to be a man and selling all of
> our kids to the consumerist spectacle.
>
> As for Gamergate, I think that Shira and I are looking at different
> dimensions of the problem here. My major issue has been the violence
> against women, both players and makers, that has been called up from the
> vasty deep. I have my own explanations if anyone is interested. I think the
> effect of leaving these culture wars unchecked is to further reduce
> civility in our society, if that is even possible.
>
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 12:12 PM, shira chess <shira.chess at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> >
> > I would like to pose a question to the other panelists and whoever
> > else feels compelled to respond:
> > What, exactly, do we think is the problem?
> >
> > All of the conversations from the last week have been approaching this
> > as though there is a tangible problem (not always the same one,
> > though). I think this might be a misguided perspective.
> >
> > Jen has suggested (and this is a fair suggestion) that the problem is
> > that identity/gaming is a somewhat maligned area of inquiry. I
> > certainly accept this to an extent, but I don't really see it as
> > particularly more maligned than any other mode of academic studies of
> > identity politics. As I had previously noted, we tend to silo
> > ourselves and create otherness based on the patriarchal structure at
> > the core of academia. I do not see gaming as distinctive in this, and
> > really it broaches a larger problem.
> >
> > In terms of the original concerns of gaming and identity, we actually
> > have made some -although not astounding headway. While sex is only one
> > matrix to judge by, in the last 4 years the number of women in the
> > gaming industry has doubled. Those numbers are tricky, I know and they
> > are not startling. But they are something. I would even go as far as
> > to say that it seems that other areas of diversity in the industry has
> > increased.
> >
> > In terms of availability of a variety of games, that has increased
> > substantially, too. Are those games mocked both in pop press and by
> > the gaming industry? Absolutely. But they are a start and they are
> > still figuring out what they want to be.
> >
> > In terms of considering the images of game characters in AAA gaming, I
> > am (honestly) uninterested. Once again, this is not dissimilar to
> > other modes of media. Game-based culture often deals with
> > sexist/racist/heterosexist imagery just as film, tv, music, etc does.
> > I am certainly not saying this is a good thing, but I am saying that
> > it is not distinctive to game culture.
> >
> > And then, gamergate. Is that what we are all really talking about?
> > Because that, of course, is a problem. But it is a problem that has
> > historical roots that can easily be traced back to the Atari crash in
> > the 80s. (In fact, a lot of GGers use this as "proof" of the problem
> > with "ethics in game journalism".) Gamer culture *is* a problem but
> > it's a messy problem without a clear resolution.
> >
> > We've been having this conversation for almost a week now, but we all
> > seem to be talking about separate "problems" - so perhaps lets break
> > this down a bit more.
> > -shira
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Aubrey Anable
> > <aubrey.anable at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> >>
> >> I?m really enjoying all of the contributions to this discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Brenda?s astute point about the mutually constitutive relationship
> between characters, the affordances created by the game as system, and the
> players is right on: ?Empathy or identification with the notion of the
> player-character as defined by the affordances and environment of the game
> is fundamental to the enjoyment of playing. So in my view, representation
> of identity matters, not only in terms of NPCs but also in terms of the
> players themselves.?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In my previous post, I didn?t mean to suggest that I think computation
> and representation are actually separate?quite the opposite. I?m just
> struck by how some very prominent figures in game studies seem to want to
> keep them separate. TreaAndrea brought our attention to an example of this
> in Ian Bogost?s recent article in The Atlantic. In Bogost?s formulation, it
> is in systems?not representation of identities through characters?where the
> true expressive potential of games resides. One of the problems I have with
> this formulation is that it presumes that players (and their identities)
> and game creators (and their identities) are not really part of the
> system?they only interact with it. I guess I would like to see a broader
> conceptualization of ?systems? that incorporates things like identity and
> representation into how systems have expressive power.
> >>
> >> Aubrey Anable
> >> Cinema Studies Institute
> >> University of Toronto
> >> 2 Sussex Ave.
> >> Toronto, ON M5S 1J5
> >>
> >> (647) 997-0570
> >> aubrey.anable at utoronto.ca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> empyre forum
> >> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> >> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
>
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 124, Issue 10
> ***************************************
>



-- 
*Sarah Schoemann *
PhD student in Digital Media <http://dm.lmc.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Creator of Different Games <http://www.differentgames.org/>
Games/Art/Education: SarahSchoemann.com <http://sarahschoemann.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150414/1349d50b/attachment.html>