Responding to Ruth Gledhill’s Article regarding the Manchester Cathedral/Sony Entertainment Controversy

In this article, Gledhill discusses the recent controversy regarding Sony’s representation of the nave of the Manchester Cathedral in their “Fall of Man” game.  As we discussed at some length in class, Gledhill raises several points — including the facts that Sony did not for ask permission to digitally represent the space, that their use of the Manchester Cathedral is particularly insensitive due to the high level of gun-related crimes in Manchester, and that the Cathedral is demanding the game be pulled.  She also points out that an informal apology on the part of Sony was not enough, and that the Cathedral demanded a donation from the company as a means reaching out to individuals within the community in the hopes of cutting back on gun violence.

Also, she discusses something else rather peculiar — a “sacred digital guideline” that the Cathedral is demanding all video game manufacturers sign.  The guidelines essentially state that no violent game reproduce or represent religious spaces in any ways that might allude to violent acts.  As I said, they’re insisting that manufacturers (including Sony) adopt these guidelines. 

 

The fact that a religious group would publish such guidelines is rather troublesome to me.  While I understand why they would not want violent acts associated with religious spaces, I feel as is stepping into such a territory could have irreversible damaging effects on the growth of virtual religious communities.  It might sound problematic to state that barring digital violence from religious spaces is a bad idea — but that’s not what I’m getting at.  My major issue is with the idea of barring various forms of digital growth, violent or otherwise.  If we start this now, who’s to say that we won’t wind up in a virtual witch hunt?  We have fantastic resources at our fingertips as technology continues to emerge;  however, if we start limiting this early on, we’ll be opening a pandora’s box of religious restriction.  Again, I’m not trying to justify virtual violence (or any violence for that matter) — I’m just saying that we need to evaluate what kind of controls we try to impose on the experiences of others.

4/14/08 Reading Responses — First Person/Readings in Ritual Studies

In Frasca’s article from First Person, she discusses the different ways in which it might (theoretically) be possible to transcend the media of a game and have it become a reality.  Using the examples of games like The Sims, she describes the phenomenon that is the representation of realistic people interacting in “realistic” environments.  This game of the year for 2000 serves as an interesting hatchmark that raises a number of different issues.  For example, she raises the point of whether or not recreating a city like Paris in a digital media would have the same effect;  more than that, what would be the effect of altering such a landscape in a digital sense?  Ultimately, she determines that one could never find the same fulfillment in a digital sense, but it DOES bring up interesting points.

In the Reader in Ritual Studies, the two authors discuss the roles of women in different forms.  The first author discusses the role of women in regards to the liminal as was described in Turner’s earlier article.  While she explains that it is unjust that women are marginalized to this liminal state, she doesn’t argue that it is not a factual claim on Turner’s part.  Similarly, the latter article points out the various ways in which women have been kept shadowed or suppressed in a dominant male society.  For this author, women serve submissive roles as the wife, the prize, etc.  Between these two articles, the authors raise similar points as to the problematic position of women within society.

Raymond Barglow’s Article, “Buddhists Armed with Apples”

In this article, the author touches on a number of different technological points that were the points of heated discussion at the time the article was written in 2000.  At the time, the extents to which electronic/technological advances were going to reach had not yet been realized, making this article slightly complicated by the ways in which the author surmised the future of the internet and technology.

He discusses the relationship between religion and technology, using Tibetan monks and Apple Inc. as an example.  Taking lines directly from the Dalai Lama, Barglow indicates that there is a great respect amongst religion (in this case, Buddhism) for technology;  the Dalai Lama was fully aware of the extensive capabilities of the internet and other such forms of technology, indicating that technological integration was merely a new chapter of spiritual advancement.

For me, the article was a rather excellent point (despite its dated quality) of just how far religious circles are willing to go to integrate into this ever-changing society.  The Dalai Lama expressed surprise at just how closed off outside circles (in this case, China) considered Buddhists to be;  the fact that these religious groups are just as willing as anyone else to partake in this pivotal transition period says a lot for the directions we’re heading as a worldwide culture, especially since this article is over 8 years old.

Class Readings for 4/7/08

In these articles, the authors describe the different ways in which text and narrative interact with one another, as well as the effects that they have on the viewer/player/audience.  In Strickland’s article, he pays particular attention to the different effects of text on the overall structure of a program (or just in general) based on the way it’s organized or constructed.  This article served as almost a predecessor for the Douglas/Hargadon and the Utterback articles (despite the fact that it came first chronologically).  In the former of the two, the authors explain the different schemas of games/films and the effects on the viewer/player.  Later in the article, they stray away from film and shift their focus more on the gradual “complication” process of games, introducing games like Myst or Titanic, in which time sometimes halts while the player undergoes rather menial tasks in hopes of reaching the next “level” in the narrative.  On a different complicated level, we find examples of interactive experiences like those we see in Utterback’s article, discussing the interaction of the ‘player’ with various forms of text (like in Stream of Consciousness or Text Rain).  What we find, in effect, is a jumble of interactivity (or a lack thereof in some of Douglas/Hargadon’s examples) coupled with complex texts that sometimes resonate (or control) narratives.

Or rather, that’s what I gathered from the reading — it was a bit dry, or maybe I’m just having difficulty grasping things as the semester winds down!

In Response to Kerstin Radde-Antweiler’s article, “Rituals Online; Transferring & Designing Rituals”

In this article, the author discusses the ways in which the internet has helped to transform religious communities, making them significantly more personal based on the various ways people control personal internet sites (i.e. — webpages, blogs, etc.) Throughout the article, she discusses various forms of rituals that one might stumble across when examining different personal websites.  For example, she discusses certain websites that give directions as to how one can perform his/her own religious rituals or how different people adopt/adapt various religions (or elements of different religions) to best fit their own desires/preferences.  In one quote she uses, she indicates how people create their various forms of realities based on their environments;  and if their environment is Google [as she suggests], then why not adopt similar ideas?

She then introduces various kinds of cross-religious meshing that has occurred, introducing various pagan or wiccan traditions with others that are as common as Catholicism.  By reviewing various passages, she perpetually extracts this theme of integration between religious sects.  Through these different concoctions, instructions for rituals are given.

The different points she brings up are, first off, difficult to grasp and then are, 2nd, impossible to get into.  Usually I read my articles with some kind of interest;  but this one was difficult to engage with.   While I appreciate the fact that the author took the time to sort through and investigate the ways in which various websites and their creators mesh and mold multiple religious views, the overall tone was just too dry to get into.

FYI*

Book Report Findings — John Naisbitt’s High Tech/High Touch

Seeing as how my book is close to a decade old, there wasn’t a lot that the author touched that I fount terribly modern.  For example, he discusses various applications of genetic research that aren’t that that new. More than anything, I suppose it’d be practical to discuss the ways in which he presents his argument because those have stuck with me more than anything else.  The various issues he brings up, from technological obsession to violence in videogames to genetic research are all presented in a way that’s little short of dismal.  For Naisbitt, all of the steps that we keep taking as a society are essentially leading us towards a loss of all interpersonal relations or any kind of compassion for humanity.  Our apparent (though unsubstantiated in the book) affiliation for violence as a culture is making us hollow inside.  Alright — my question is, what does he propose that we change?  Rather than give the reader and substantial suggestions, he points out our cultural flaws and then draws his book to a close.  More obnoxious is the ways in which he literally introduces a new expert of some kind in EACH paragraph, drawing in small phrases to substantiate claims that take up 60 pages.  In effect, you can’t help but question the credibility of these arguments, based on the fact that few of them are upheld by more than 2 sentences of any of his suggested experts.The book wasn’t as bad as I’m painting it;  I just wish there’d been a bit more resolution.  While Naisbitt cowers from our technological advances, I feel as if we should play them to our advantage.  I don’t disagree that we’re become somewhat obsessed with the rapid upgrading, but that doesn’t mean we’re bad people, does it? 

Response to Susan Kozel’s article, “Spacemaking: Experiences of a Virtual Body”

The author of this article is a dancer, writing about her experiences in a digital performance piece called Telematic Dreaming.  Basically the way in which the piece was set up was, her image was projected onto a bed from a space completely separate of the main display.  From another room, she would perform in reality while watching on monitors around her bed the people in/around the bed.  Then, others could come up and interact with her projection.  While the interaction ends up being only beams of light between people, the ways in which the experience transformed Kozel are striking.

 

She first explains the ways in which various kinds of interaction with visitors to the bed affected her physical or mental state.  For example, certain people interacted in protective or caring fashions;  in effect, she oftentimes felt a sense of calm.  However, other more violent figures (like a man that pulled a knife or 2 figures that sexually assaulted her projection) produced physical sensations of fear or terror, despite only being projections.  This was a deep indication as to the ways in which virtual interaction could produce profound physical response.  

 

She goes on to discuss the different kinds of interactions experienced, pointing out what was more or less electrifying.  However, her most interesting point perhaps is the ways in which physical and digital bodies often meshed together.  She could hide herself in the body of a darkly dressed figure or by slinking away from the cameras.   Perhaps the most striking feature was how she occasionally became disoriented when she accidentally touched something physical while performing, becoming confused as to what was the “obstacle” preventing her interaction with the light projected before her.  More than that, she often noticed how social and/or sexual “guidelines” often played a major role in various interactions.

 

***

 

Perhaps what I find most intriguing about this article is how emotionally/physically engaged Kozel was during her time in this exhibition.  I find it fascinating how she claims to experience physical arousal despite only interacting with a projection.  For me, this really alludes to the power of virtual interaction.  Seeing as how projection is now a rather primitive or simplistic form of digital technology, it leads me to wonder what kinds of virtual experiences now elicit direct physical/emotional responses.  Kozel discusses some sexual encounters during her performances, stating that the digital interactions were more passionate/intimate than actual physical interactions with the same people!  Is this perhaps why we find such a growth in online dating/relationship sites?  What is it about such online communities that makes us lose our inhibitions and cut loose?  Kozel’s writing is a nice early example of this quickly growing phenomenon — not just of online relationships, but of all virtual interaction.

Reading Response — 3/17/08

In the First Person reading, the author discussed the two different “kinds” of time  that affect the gaming community.  He writes about how, to  partake in a game, one must set aside his/her own time and by doing so, he/she can progress the “event time” of the game by going through the motions of playing levels, performing tasks, etc. 

He then goes on to explain the different ways in which these times are confused.  For example, he discusses how cut scenes interrupt the time of a game.  While they’re still progressing a narrative, they still occur at a specific point in the game that only comes when the play time pushes the event time to that point.  He also discusses other games with monotonous tasks, like Space Invaders, in which there is no direct progression of the event time.  When a level is completed, nothing changes — a new level merely begins.  This raises interesting questions about how to treat the relationship between play & event time;  in general, an individual often becomes bored of repetitive tasks — this should be the same in way of games that lack progressive narratives.  However games like Space Invaders manage to maintain their audiences despite their lack of narrative. 

He also discusses the ways in which saving/loading of games interractives with the idea of a narrative.  If one has the ability to step back in event time and “try again”, does this have the same value as “completing” a narrative in one full chunk?  He also raises the point that setting aside play time to progress event time only to have to jump far back and set aside MORE play time to perform the same actions in the event time has frustrating consequences on the part of the player. 

 As for the Mircea Eliade book we were assigned to read, I am a failure and was not aware until yesterday evening that it was due today.  While that is clearly no excuse for my shortcomings, there’s no reason to lie about it.  I apologize.

First Person/Persuasive Games Readings — Mond. 3/3/08

So this week’s First Person readings weren’t as bad as before — while the article about mapping online conversations was in the realm of dry, it was at least easy to understand.  So we’ll start there.

 

In Sack’s article, he discussed in great length the way in which various online conversations were mapped.  From what I gather, this mapping was a way of breaking down the various ways in which conversation (particularly digital forums) can criss-cross back and forth, often overlapping one another.  Using the different topic examples, like health, politics, and the environment, various opinions as well as heightened/reduced levels of interaction become obvious.  For example, the pre-/post-election conversations I found particularly engaging due to the fact that we’re in a similar position now.  The number of integrated conversations before the election  was extremely high, with various lines connecting to other comments — in argument, agreement, etc.  We can apply this same idea now, seeing as how the presidential race is such a topic of debate.  It all converges on this idea of community;  people draw on/argue with the ideas of others, which Sack makes evident by mapping how this is done.

 

Walker’s article is a much different story.  I found myself to be intrigued while at the same time a bit… uncomfortable.  Part of me wanted to visit OnlineCaroline.com and try it out for myself;  but as I read into the narrative and discovered that the inevitable outcome of the article is [essentially] the demise of the character with whom you’re interacting.  I was, by association, being attracted to the narrative through someone’s else’s experience, making it clear just how powerful such a narrative can be.  I know before even visiting the website what the outcome will be, and yet I can’t help but want to experience it.  The question is — why?  What is it about such a highly interactive narrative that I find so intriguing?  Walker even points out that, while you’re given some degree of input, the narrative remains relatively the same.  And again, the outcome is the same.  And all along, your interest only quickens the demise of the central character.  Despite the morbid quality of the simulation, it can’t help but fascinate.  Perhaps it’s this overall idea of community and acceptance that we’re looking at;  we discuss the ways in which people seek for friends online, and this is a prime example — a character with little/no outside interactivity set up to appear as if she is looking for this companionship.  Is it the desire on our part to be that lifeline, despite our knowledge of her fate?  Is it the thought in the back of our minds that maybe we’ll do something different and end up saving ‘her’?  Maybe it’s a digital way of tapping ideas that are fundamentally human.  Clearly, I again have no answer;  but it’s what’s plaguing me this week.  (Should I be fear writing this midterm?  It’s going to be all questions!)

 

Anyways, onto the Bogost article. I’m not gonna lie, he’s kind of difficult for me to engage, but let’s see what we can do.  In his article, he describes the different ways in which videogames and democracy (in particular, violent encounters) interact and feed off of one another.  For example, he discusses games from something as outrageous as JFK: Reloaded to something like Kuma/War.  In these two very different games, we find players taking on the roles of some of the most gruesome events in U.S. history;  what does it mean that we have people so interested in reenacting and ‘participating’ in such events?  And more than that, what does it mean on a political level?  He then goes on to discuss Howard Dean’s online game used to entice voters in Iowa.  I’ll be honest and admit that I skimmed this part due to my lack of interest in it.  I guess what I gathered overall from the article was the idea of incorporation on the part of citizens in these events.  Where does this popularity stem from, and why does it work so well?

In Response to Feder’s Article, “The First Church of Cyberspace”

In this article, Feder discusses the first electronic Christian services (dated 2004).  The website, churchoffools.com, still exists today — I gave it a go, but I’ll get there in a minute.  In 2004, the website was launched as a means of opening up religious services by making them available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection;  designers were even so kind as to make the software primitive enough that anyone with an outdated computer could partake as well.  Actual ministers or priests performed shortened sermons that they created in advance that could be attended by groups of individuals present as selected avatars.  Due to budget restraints, they weren’t able to procure any kind of filtering software, nor could they smite any avatar that used unnecessary profanity — but they expelled anyone that caused commotion.  A particularly striking fact was that they allowed quiet conversation to be held with those “in/around you” in the digital pews;  I just found it peculiar that something slightly taboo as speaking during a service is programmed INTO the software.  Overall, the goal was to achieve a new kind of participation on the part of others;  the designers acknowledge the growing detachment in societies and wanted to address it by making religious activity more readily available to people — in any context.***Okay, now for the fun stuff.  As I said, I gave the website a try;  it’s remarkably simple.  It doesn’t require any downloads and the simple construction makes the operation simple and rather quick.  Basically, you select a character (male/female and then you select a different character depending on sex), then enter an empty church complete with  an altar, pews, an organ, and a sort of downstairs lounge.  It was empty of people, but creepy echoes made it a little eerie.  (I later read posted articles on the site and they indicate that in Dec. of 2004, the site barred people from interacting with others in the ‘church’.  It’s now like a cloister for personal reflection/prayer.)  At the bottom, there’s a text box in which you can type what you want your character to say, as well as a clickable box that says “Pray” on it which causes the character to kneel in pray. I tried a few phrases in the text box — including profanity to determine whether or not they blocked it — and the result was kind of unusual.  You can type in anything you want and then after pressing enter, it will appear in a box over the characters head that ascends “upward” out of the frame as if on its way to heaven [or something like that].  The same happened with any kind of profanity, which almost seemed like you were having the character swear in the form of a prayer.  While I find the idea of digital church and sermon a nice one, I’m curious as to how successful the idea is in such a form.  As the article points out, there were a number of members that came in solely as a means of disruption.  What does that mean for others that actually do ‘enter’ this digital space as a means of worship?  Is it possible to have a digital space and prevent any such encounters?  And more than that, what does it mean in regards to physically moving one’s self to a physical religious structure (like a church, synagogue, mosque, etc.)?  Are they 2 equal actions, or does one have less grounds than another?  I have a bad habit of never answering the questions I bring up;  but I honestly haven’t the slightest clue what the ‘answer’ is [if there even is one].