In "Does Lara Croft Wear Fake Polygons?, Anne-Marie Schleiner writes about the role that video games are playing in a cultural battle for gender equality and the effects that the avatar character has on different genders and cross genders.
Schleiner points out in her essay, how the avatar and game altering edits play upon these different gender roles and allow an expressive reform to the traditional hegemony of traditional masculinity. This is fully summarized in the last portion of her last paragraph, "From Lara as female automaton to Lara as drag queen, Lara as dominatrix, Lara as girl-power role model and Lara as queer babe with shotgun, a new range of subject positions will emerge in on-line game hacking culture that challenge given gender categories and adapt them to the diverse gender sensibilities of men, women and others." (225)
I certainly appreciated that Schleiner was upfront enough in her essay to state that she was not trying to "wrap things up in a puncture-proof bubble of thesis, proof and conclusion." (221) This statement gave me the confidence to not be crucially critical, but more malleable in thought processes.
Reading through Schleiner's essay made me wonder about the messages that she was portraying. The majority of gamers are typically males, which Schleiner points out.
In her section title Lara as Drag Queen I found myself as a protagonist, adversely arguing the notions of her cited authors (Turkle, Clover). It seemed ironic that Schleiner's essay was clearly arguing in favor of gender/cross gender equality but simultaneously emasculating maleness in the form of a queer notion. Marketing strategy would most likely dictate that the game would be made or fashioned in way that would attract a male audience. Any author could argue this marketing strategy in an antagonistic fashion. This would seem logical given the cultural changes and gender placements over the last fifty years. I'm sure that there are some males who would appreciate this point of view, but to assert a notion as though it applies to "the majority of Tomb Raider players" (223) would seem to be a "fallacy" (In the words of a wise DTC 475 teacher). The view that was expressed by these authors made me think of Freud's theory regarding the son's lust for his mother. As well as Freud is regarded, I don't believe that some of his assertions have taken hold.
While I didn't specifically agree with the previous notion I found Schleiner's insight on gender personification to be somewhat thought provoking. It was interesting to see the section titled Lara as a Vehicle for the Queer Female Gaze. It almost appeared to be an intrepid role reversal from queer emasculation to queer feminism. From what I could gather, Schleiner makes comment about the empowering value that Croft's character may hold for gay females. Schleiner comments, "In the fantasy realm of Tomb Raider, the abject is transformed from repulsion to visceral thrill, opening up a queer channel to pleasure for the female gamer."(224) Wouldn't this be the same for many males as well. Wouldn't males get the same visceral thrill that gay females do from playing the game? Just a thought.
While I don't argue that gender equality is necessary in today's society, I will argue the physical differences between genders. These physical differences are the reason for masculine and feminine properties. In many aspects, emotional differences between male and female are extreme. Physiological differences tap even further into the differences between male and female. Culturally the differences and "inequalities" are still present in many cultures today. It is the mentality of the hunter/gatherer vs. nurturer/homemaker that has been ingrained within our cultures and is inherent to these physical traits. The only way this will change is through mutation or genetic manipulation. But alas, this is a different topic all together.
Schleiner, Anne-Marie. Does Lara Croft Wear Fake Polygons?: Gender and Gender-Role Subversion in Computer Adventure Games. Leonardo, Vol. 34, NO.3 The MIT Press, 2001.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Lev Manovich and Digital Photography
Sorry everyone, I'm a couple of days late in writing this. Too many things going on and not enough time to do them all in. :-)
For this assignment I chose to do Lev Manovich's "The Paradoxes of Digital Photography". The piece is well written and it's interesting to see the references
Manvovich's makes on the subject over thirteen years ago. His references however, don't just include digital photography in the general sense. His references encompass film, cinema, video games, graphics, and other forms of visual media. His main focus in this essay is to reveal a couple of paradoxical highlights in the form of answering questions. His first paradoxical highlight is based on the "alleged physical differences between digital and film-based representation of photographs", while the second is based on the notion of "realism in computer generated syntheic photography".
Manovich expertly deconstructs the absolute notions of "real photography" and virtual images. In short, he compares and contrasts the notions of what most of us have come to think of photography as and how we originally perceived photographic images to be real and void of flaw. Manovich also delineates the notions of cinema and film and the implications associated with computer imaging, video editing, and picture degradation (through file compression).
I was impressed with Manovich's deconstruction of digital imaging and photography. He was able to clearly spell out his assertions regarding the matter and adequately represented his arugments.
His first paradox, "So while digital imaging promises to completely replace the techniques of filmmaking, it at the same time finds new roles and brings new value to the ciematic apparatus, the classic fims, and the photopraphic look. This is the first paradox of digital imaging" has almost rung true. Whle digital imaging hasn't completely replaced the techniques of filmmaking, it certainly has played an ever increasing role within the filmmaking industry. Movies such as Avatar have made great use of digital imaging techniques and effects, but the technique of filmmaking is still there. I tried to figure out if Manovich was trying to convey that digital imaging was specifically related to digital movie cameras or computer generated modeling. I felt that his statement may have been a bit unclear here, but if he is saying that digital imaging is more of a computer modeling feature then I'm in disagreement - The techniques of film making are still present over thirteen years later. If he is saying that digital cameras are taking over traditional film based cameras, then I would tend to agree with his paradox.
His final paradox is based on the notion that digital imaging is both superior and inferior to traditional photography. Manovich uses another author (Mitchell) to compare and contrast this notion. I found Manovich's statement "If we limit ourselves by focusing solely, as Mitchell does, on the abstract principles of digital imaging, then the difference between a digital and a photgraphic image appears enormous. But if we consider concrete digital technologies and their uses, the differencee dissappears. Digital photography simply does not exist" to be somewhat profound. While I note the differences in technologies, I personally don't think about them when taking pictures with a digital camera. In fact in most ways I sincerely prefer the "no muss, no fuss" digital format. It relieves me from the duties of film loading and processing. I'm able to delete pictures I don't want and save the ones I do want. No money is wasted on developing pictures that I don't need and the wait time for pictures I do want is almost nill. I don't notice the differences in picture quality when comparing an analog and digital photo. I'm in agreement with Manovich when he says, "digital photography simply does not exist."
For this assignment I chose to do Lev Manovich's "The Paradoxes of Digital Photography". The piece is well written and it's interesting to see the references
Manvovich's makes on the subject over thirteen years ago. His references however, don't just include digital photography in the general sense. His references encompass film, cinema, video games, graphics, and other forms of visual media. His main focus in this essay is to reveal a couple of paradoxical highlights in the form of answering questions. His first paradoxical highlight is based on the "alleged physical differences between digital and film-based representation of photographs", while the second is based on the notion of "realism in computer generated syntheic photography".
Manovich expertly deconstructs the absolute notions of "real photography" and virtual images. In short, he compares and contrasts the notions of what most of us have come to think of photography as and how we originally perceived photographic images to be real and void of flaw. Manovich also delineates the notions of cinema and film and the implications associated with computer imaging, video editing, and picture degradation (through file compression).
I was impressed with Manovich's deconstruction of digital imaging and photography. He was able to clearly spell out his assertions regarding the matter and adequately represented his arugments.
His first paradox, "So while digital imaging promises to completely replace the techniques of filmmaking, it at the same time finds new roles and brings new value to the ciematic apparatus, the classic fims, and the photopraphic look. This is the first paradox of digital imaging" has almost rung true. Whle digital imaging hasn't completely replaced the techniques of filmmaking, it certainly has played an ever increasing role within the filmmaking industry. Movies such as Avatar have made great use of digital imaging techniques and effects, but the technique of filmmaking is still there. I tried to figure out if Manovich was trying to convey that digital imaging was specifically related to digital movie cameras or computer generated modeling. I felt that his statement may have been a bit unclear here, but if he is saying that digital imaging is more of a computer modeling feature then I'm in disagreement - The techniques of film making are still present over thirteen years later. If he is saying that digital cameras are taking over traditional film based cameras, then I would tend to agree with his paradox.
His final paradox is based on the notion that digital imaging is both superior and inferior to traditional photography. Manovich uses another author (Mitchell) to compare and contrast this notion. I found Manovich's statement "If we limit ourselves by focusing solely, as Mitchell does, on the abstract principles of digital imaging, then the difference between a digital and a photgraphic image appears enormous. But if we consider concrete digital technologies and their uses, the differencee dissappears. Digital photography simply does not exist" to be somewhat profound. While I note the differences in technologies, I personally don't think about them when taking pictures with a digital camera. In fact in most ways I sincerely prefer the "no muss, no fuss" digital format. It relieves me from the duties of film loading and processing. I'm able to delete pictures I don't want and save the ones I do want. No money is wasted on developing pictures that I don't need and the wait time for pictures I do want is almost nill. I don't notice the differences in picture quality when comparing an analog and digital photo. I'm in agreement with Manovich when he says, "digital photography simply does not exist."
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Nakamura bows out....
On pg. 178 Nakamura quotes Anna McCarthy, saying "television itself has become an "ambient" medium, newly common in waiting rooms, vehicles, and public spaces, television's migration out of domestic space and into public space has been driven partly by the influence of digital media. The internet is a paradox: notable for the ways in which scholars have predicted its "ubiquity," it is nonetheless far from universally accessible inside or outside the context of the living room."
This was one of the key points that Nakamura was trying to make in the book. While I certainly didn't agree with a lot of what Nakamura had to say, the one thing that I will give her credit for and agree with her on, is conveying that there is a digital divide. Quite frankly there is and will always be one no matter what. There will always be differnt socio classes, races, ethnicities, and genders. This will never change. What it really boils down to is how do we deal with the situation. Perhaps it's time to stop whining about the issue of race and such and deal with the situation individually? Does it start with every individual putting their best foot forward in an effort to maximize a collaboration amongst "everyone". I say "everyone" because this is truly an optomistic aberration. This will never occur. While there is a diversity of people in the world there is also diverse belief systems in place that prohibit this.
In our younger generation or Net Generation the divdie rears its head in the from of qualitative learning opportunities. While over 90% of schools currently have computers and internet access the amount of students actively participating in the process of digital learning ranges. It ranges in the form of demographics, race, ethnicity, learning facilities, etc...The idea that "Whites" have the upper hand falls parodoxically into statistics. But as I tried to point out in class the other day, "Let's look at how many "white" people there are in the country compared to other racial groups." There are far more "white" people in the United States thereby skewing the idea of a level playing field when dealing with statistical data.
Nakamura is quick to point out the racial aspect of this situation. Race may play a part in the digital divide, but it certainly isn't the only avenue that needs to be assessed in the process. She is also quick to point out a myriad of faulty statistical analysis as a recourse for her notions regarding the racial divide. It's always intersting to see this occur in the books that I read. Often times statistical analysis is a vehicle that does nothing more than allow an opinion to be expressed and to attach some form of validity to an asserted notion. Looking at the sampling for these given analysis could lead to any number of conclusions without necessarily representing the actual facts regarding the situation.
That being said, it is also interesting to note how Nakamura tries to play some sort of racial woo-is-me card in relation to commodification. Hello, marketing and advertising is going to be directed at people who have purchasing power. Advertisers simply aren't going to waste their resources marketing to people who can't purchase their goods. They are going to try to market certain products based on cultural bias...PERIOD. It's about money, not race in this particular case.
To some this may be seen as a divide, but when hasn't there been one. There has been a divide of classes or heirarchies (in every culture) since the beginning of time. Case in point, there will always be a divide. There will always be heirarchies and there will always be racial differences. It's up to us as individuals to deal with these issues and try to make the world a better place.
This was one of the key points that Nakamura was trying to make in the book. While I certainly didn't agree with a lot of what Nakamura had to say, the one thing that I will give her credit for and agree with her on, is conveying that there is a digital divide. Quite frankly there is and will always be one no matter what. There will always be differnt socio classes, races, ethnicities, and genders. This will never change. What it really boils down to is how do we deal with the situation. Perhaps it's time to stop whining about the issue of race and such and deal with the situation individually? Does it start with every individual putting their best foot forward in an effort to maximize a collaboration amongst "everyone". I say "everyone" because this is truly an optomistic aberration. This will never occur. While there is a diversity of people in the world there is also diverse belief systems in place that prohibit this.
In our younger generation or Net Generation the divdie rears its head in the from of qualitative learning opportunities. While over 90% of schools currently have computers and internet access the amount of students actively participating in the process of digital learning ranges. It ranges in the form of demographics, race, ethnicity, learning facilities, etc...The idea that "Whites" have the upper hand falls parodoxically into statistics. But as I tried to point out in class the other day, "Let's look at how many "white" people there are in the country compared to other racial groups." There are far more "white" people in the United States thereby skewing the idea of a level playing field when dealing with statistical data.
Nakamura is quick to point out the racial aspect of this situation. Race may play a part in the digital divide, but it certainly isn't the only avenue that needs to be assessed in the process. She is also quick to point out a myriad of faulty statistical analysis as a recourse for her notions regarding the racial divide. It's always intersting to see this occur in the books that I read. Often times statistical analysis is a vehicle that does nothing more than allow an opinion to be expressed and to attach some form of validity to an asserted notion. Looking at the sampling for these given analysis could lead to any number of conclusions without necessarily representing the actual facts regarding the situation.
That being said, it is also interesting to note how Nakamura tries to play some sort of racial woo-is-me card in relation to commodification. Hello, marketing and advertising is going to be directed at people who have purchasing power. Advertisers simply aren't going to waste their resources marketing to people who can't purchase their goods. They are going to try to market certain products based on cultural bias...PERIOD. It's about money, not race in this particular case.
To some this may be seen as a divide, but when hasn't there been one. There has been a divide of classes or heirarchies (in every culture) since the beginning of time. Case in point, there will always be a divide. There will always be heirarchies and there will always be racial differences. It's up to us as individuals to deal with these issues and try to make the world a better place.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Sushi-Afro-Whiteboy Mix
Chapter 3's intriguing layers seemed to clearly spell out the authors viewpoint towards racial bias. Before approaching the passage within the reading that I will elucidate upon, I would like to discuss a statement made on pg. 101.
While the quotes that I will reference aren't specifically verbalized by Nakamura, they seem to build upon her undertone.
"Whiteness thus spreads in a manner that exemplifies a much-favored paradigm of e-business in the nineties: viral marketing. Steven Shaviro defines it as follows: "The message propagates itself by massive self-replication as it passes from person to person in the manner of an epidemic contagion."
It seems paradoxical that the message of "Whiteness" would be propagated from person to person as not all of us share the same racial or ethnic identities.
Am I understanding Nakamura correctly??....Is she conveying that "Whiteness" is an issue. Throughout chapter, Nakamura contextualizes "Whiteness" as a source of power and identity, seemingly taking an antagonistic approach towards an ethnicity that is not her own.
Interestingly, one thing that she doesn't relay in her message (at least so far) is the vast differentiation of cultural and ethnic behaviors within the "White" race and how they contrast in many aspects to her asserted notions within the chapter. Nakamura isn't alone when she utilizes the "White" race card though. It would be interesting to see an author parse the dogmatic behavior of other authors who ironically write about race and continually utilize "White" as a stereotypical Anglo American term.
Ok...Onto the assignment...I'm deviating a bit from the movie portion and focusing more on the Apple advertisements.
On pg. 109-110 Nakamura summarizes Apple's position in marketing to an audience (demographically - a younger audience at that) in a somewhat racially biased, yet culturally intuitive manner. She addresses how Apple has capitalized on what Donnell Alexander (pg. 112; bottom of page) has described as "Cool". Nakamura's deconstruction of Apple's scheme is well thought out. She is able to verbalize what Apple is doing visually and shows us how Apple is using racial hierarchy to affirm parts of their message while tangentially maintaining some sort of racial neutrality. She is also quick to point out the message of "I" in Apple's ruse. The word "I" appears attractive to a younger demographic because they are constantly in search of what something can do for them. Not only does Apple give them something that is cool and is theirs, but appeals to them through the realm of interconnectivity and rapid change.
Quite frankly, despite Nakamura's deconstruction of Apple's marketing ploy, I would have to say that Apple is doing a bang up job in their marketing dept. They have truly hit the nail on the head when tying to convey their "message" to potential consumers.
This commercial, while not hiding the relative racial identities, epitomizes the Apple I-Pod ad that Nakamura describes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOEU87SBTU&feature=player_embedded
In the Coke ad we start by seeing the form of a "beautiful" white woman gracing us with her voice. She is the starting point of power in the commercial as she is the only one singing out of the huge chorus at the beginning. After her intro we see "everyone else" join in the chorus. The relayed message and visual indicators of racial difference are apparent and somewhat transparent unlike the Apple commercial, however the commercial does signify how "even back when" companies were trying to unify people around their prospective products utilizing the techniques Nakamura describes.
Although this next video isn't related to what I was describing above, it definitely fits into our reading and race discussions. While this commercial doesn't have the specific "coolness" factor built into it like Apple's I-Pod commercial and doesn't try to subliminally coherse you, it is definitely a satirical comment towards Nakamura's work.
http://www.break.com/holy-taco/the-red-house-furniture-commercial.html
While the quotes that I will reference aren't specifically verbalized by Nakamura, they seem to build upon her undertone.
"Whiteness thus spreads in a manner that exemplifies a much-favored paradigm of e-business in the nineties: viral marketing. Steven Shaviro defines it as follows: "The message propagates itself by massive self-replication as it passes from person to person in the manner of an epidemic contagion."
It seems paradoxical that the message of "Whiteness" would be propagated from person to person as not all of us share the same racial or ethnic identities.
Am I understanding Nakamura correctly??....Is she conveying that "Whiteness" is an issue. Throughout chapter, Nakamura contextualizes "Whiteness" as a source of power and identity, seemingly taking an antagonistic approach towards an ethnicity that is not her own.
Interestingly, one thing that she doesn't relay in her message (at least so far) is the vast differentiation of cultural and ethnic behaviors within the "White" race and how they contrast in many aspects to her asserted notions within the chapter. Nakamura isn't alone when she utilizes the "White" race card though. It would be interesting to see an author parse the dogmatic behavior of other authors who ironically write about race and continually utilize "White" as a stereotypical Anglo American term.
Ok...Onto the assignment...I'm deviating a bit from the movie portion and focusing more on the Apple advertisements.
On pg. 109-110 Nakamura summarizes Apple's position in marketing to an audience (demographically - a younger audience at that) in a somewhat racially biased, yet culturally intuitive manner. She addresses how Apple has capitalized on what Donnell Alexander (pg. 112; bottom of page) has described as "Cool". Nakamura's deconstruction of Apple's scheme is well thought out. She is able to verbalize what Apple is doing visually and shows us how Apple is using racial hierarchy to affirm parts of their message while tangentially maintaining some sort of racial neutrality. She is also quick to point out the message of "I" in Apple's ruse. The word "I" appears attractive to a younger demographic because they are constantly in search of what something can do for them. Not only does Apple give them something that is cool and is theirs, but appeals to them through the realm of interconnectivity and rapid change.
Quite frankly, despite Nakamura's deconstruction of Apple's marketing ploy, I would have to say that Apple is doing a bang up job in their marketing dept. They have truly hit the nail on the head when tying to convey their "message" to potential consumers.
This commercial, while not hiding the relative racial identities, epitomizes the Apple I-Pod ad that Nakamura describes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOEU87SBTU&feature=player_embedded
In the Coke ad we start by seeing the form of a "beautiful" white woman gracing us with her voice. She is the starting point of power in the commercial as she is the only one singing out of the huge chorus at the beginning. After her intro we see "everyone else" join in the chorus. The relayed message and visual indicators of racial difference are apparent and somewhat transparent unlike the Apple commercial, however the commercial does signify how "even back when" companies were trying to unify people around their prospective products utilizing the techniques Nakamura describes.
Although this next video isn't related to what I was describing above, it definitely fits into our reading and race discussions. While this commercial doesn't have the specific "coolness" factor built into it like Apple's I-Pod commercial and doesn't try to subliminally coherse you, it is definitely a satirical comment towards Nakamura's work.
http://www.break.com/holy-taco/the-red-house-furniture-commercial.html
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Donna Haraway and Heroin...????
I'm probably not alone when I say that this lady rambles like she's on drugs.....I can't stand the way that she "verbalizes in text".
If you don't like that I've said that....Too bad!!! I wasn't able to summarize a large amount of what I read. All I was able to do was take away a an excerpt that struck me as interesting and debatable. The other thing that made it more difficult was the lack of all pages being present in any section....Thanks a f#@*in' lot Google Books and fair use doctrine... geez ....So I'll have to take what I (and you) can get from this book.
Ok...Hmmmm....The one excerpt that I pulled out of reading Modest_Witness_@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan-Meets_OncoMouse....whatever..
In the excerpt, Haraway says quote, "I insist that social relationships include nonhumans as well as humans socially (or, what is the same thing for this odd congeries, sociotechnically) active partners. All that is unhuman is not un-kind, outside kinship, outside the orders of signification, excluded from trading in signs and wonders."
I had to think about what she was saying here. What is she really saying when she says nonhuman? If she's specifically identifying a computer as the nonhuman object, than she's quite right. I don't know if I would go as far as to say "partner", at least in the form of a noun. We may partner with a computer as a tool to accomplish things or something. In this case I would say that we utilize them to build on social relationships. Therefore, the computer would technically be included in our social role or interaction.
Other than that.....Reading her work was tedious and laborious. It seemed like she made little sense....From what I could gather in my reading she seemed to equating transgenic mutation, cloning, capitalism, and corporatism within the realm of a new world order. Quite frankly, as I said before, she sounds like she's tweaking out on some illegal substances. Haraway writes in a style that seems to vomit her paranoias, convulsions, and random thoughts onto the pages. Her style left me wandering about the pages in search of tangible sentence structure and cohesive unity that would allow me to vacuum up some traces of validity.
Unfortunately, I didn't hoover much.
If you don't like that I've said that....Too bad!!! I wasn't able to summarize a large amount of what I read. All I was able to do was take away a an excerpt that struck me as interesting and debatable. The other thing that made it more difficult was the lack of all pages being present in any section....Thanks a f#@*in' lot Google Books and fair use doctrine... geez ....So I'll have to take what I (and you) can get from this book.
Ok...Hmmmm....The one excerpt that I pulled out of reading Modest_Witness_@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan-Meets_OncoMouse....whatever..
In the excerpt, Haraway says quote, "I insist that social relationships include nonhumans as well as humans socially (or, what is the same thing for this odd congeries, sociotechnically) active partners. All that is unhuman is not un-kind, outside kinship, outside the orders of signification, excluded from trading in signs and wonders."
I had to think about what she was saying here. What is she really saying when she says nonhuman? If she's specifically identifying a computer as the nonhuman object, than she's quite right. I don't know if I would go as far as to say "partner", at least in the form of a noun. We may partner with a computer as a tool to accomplish things or something. In this case I would say that we utilize them to build on social relationships. Therefore, the computer would technically be included in our social role or interaction.
Other than that.....Reading her work was tedious and laborious. It seemed like she made little sense....From what I could gather in my reading she seemed to equating transgenic mutation, cloning, capitalism, and corporatism within the realm of a new world order. Quite frankly, as I said before, she sounds like she's tweaking out on some illegal substances. Haraway writes in a style that seems to vomit her paranoias, convulsions, and random thoughts onto the pages. Her style left me wandering about the pages in search of tangible sentence structure and cohesive unity that would allow me to vacuum up some traces of validity.
Unfortunately, I didn't hoover much.
What I'm doin'...
Hey everyone....I'm doing -> Modes_Witness@Second_Mellennium.Female_ Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience
Josh
Josh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
