Writing: Virtual Graffiti
Reading this review today made me think about what we consider "writing" and why. The reviewer states that in this new game, the gamer takes on the role of a "writer," which is immediately qualified as writing not as composition or journalism, but rather graffiti. I haven't played the game, but plan to soon (I tried to purchase it today, but was denied since I did not "preorder" it), but I have played Jet Set Ra
dio (Sega, 2000). Both games require the gamer to become urban artists and leave his/her symbol throughout the city. I cannot speak for Ecko's game, but Jet Set allows the gamer to create his own symbols that are then sprayed on to the walls throughout the city. In essence, the created symbol thus stands for the gamer in the diegesis of the game. Greg Ulmer talks about emblems in relation to a person's widesite, "Everything that is said about the emblem is there as a relay for your own composition/design. You should always ask: What is that for me?" (246). As the quadrants of the popcycle are worked through (entertainment, personal, community, and discipline/career), images repeat and form patterns. It is through these patterns that invention occurs. Emblems should grow out of this invention as a version of the "wide image." If each of us has a wide image, then it should follow that each of us has an emblem.
posted by Hakim @ 10:46 PM
2 Comments:
At 5:46 PM,
Renuka said…
Cool post Joe!It triggered off a chain of thought. I get the feeling only you'll understand my post about this(if you've read my paper) because I've leaped on from one idea to the next, without defining any of the concepts I'm reflecting on.
At 9:57 AM,
Brian said…
These games sound like there is very little creativity involved. My image is you can only create what is in the limits of the game, and people soon forget their "original" ideas and continue to live a fantasy world.
Maybe that's what gaming is all about - a fantasy - and since my gaming experience is NCAA Football, Fifa Soccer, and NHLPA '93 for Sega, I fail to understand what the thrill is of role playing games or others where the object is to outsmart a computer opponent.
I suppose my last comment is hypocritical because my "fantasy" of winning the Stanley Cup as Los Angeles with the offsides turned off is similar to somebody spray painting while trying not to get caught.
Maybe in my drunken stupor I missed the point of the article? Not too sure, but maybe 11 months surrounded by people reading manga on trains and in Internet Cafes has made me wonder if people have an appreciation of art, or are more concerned with their lives in a fantasy world?
The question of "what is art" is too philosophical, but I do not think of video games or anything computer generated as being "true art." Purely people too lazy to think outside the norm.
Perhaps I'm way off the subject?
Post a Comment
<< Home