STRUCTRALISM & BINARY OPPOSITION

For this blog I have decided to look at both subject matters and break them down in a attempt to understand their origins and core beliefs.


Structuralism looks at the way people conceive the world by means of investigating the way they organize their knowledge and understanding of the world around them.
Structuralism is an evolution of semiotic principles and some original ideas appeared in the studies of  Linguistics (Ferdinand de Saussure), Narratology (Vladimir Propp) and Anthropology (Claude Levi-Strauss).

*Structuralism was founded on the basis of opposing ideas that related to humanistic characteristics.

Structuralism deviates from Ontological and Epistemological ideas to create a new perceptive direction in which to observe meaning. Certain human behaviours are perceived in a anti-metaphysical manor to determine the motive of the action, which (in structuralism) is said to derive from deep rooted structures.

Ontology - study of  "Being" (ideas come from a higher existence)

                      *Plato believed in the ultimate ideas and essences of everything existed in the heavens, he believed that ideas and thoughts were not man made but were a product of some divine power.

Epistemology - study of  "Knowing" (ideas come from within)

Early Structuralism cited that metaphysical meaning (philosophical and theological) does not come from above but proceeds upward from material structures. Proto-structuralist Karl Marks believed that certain elements 

(Art. Religion ect.) in life are not produced due to divine ideas and concepts but are products of physical, material and socio-economical forces which are then be developed upon.  

Structuralism also rejects the "subjective self" (conciousness/ego) as the final source of meaning, instead conciousness itself could be said to be an outcome of the structures within our unconscious. This would make our concious mind a product of structuralism as a posed to a source of knowledge.

**These "Structures" that are spoken about are not made up of certain 'things' but are defined by the differences that are created when they are combined/grouped.

Example; when looking at Binary, the numbers which make it mean nothing on their own,

once combined however the differences between the 1's and 0's make a meaningful structure.

Binary Opposition splits everything into two opposing categories i.e. Life - Death

                                                           Hot - Cold

                                                                Male - Female

                                                           Land - Sky

These Binary Oppositions allow for ease of explanation and comparison in communication.

Basic structuralist ideas use the rigid boundaries of  Binary Opposition and in turn share principles with  Ideological concepts. Binary Opposition is very ideological by the way its uses the strict "one or the other" method of finding meaning, that things are very certain and can be divide because of this.
These methods can not always be seen as accurate as they dont take into account personal experience, social trends ect. which is a necessary process in certain circumstances.

Once these elements of Binary Opposition have been understood it is now possible to question them, this is where the rigid structures can become more blurred. Examples of this in the lecture were heavily focus on the idea of "Cyborgs" which involves the merging of 'human' and 'mechanical' aspects. 

VIOLANCE: Intention and Impact

The debate on violence in video games is not a clear argument. First the definition of "violence" needs to be established within a gaming context.Violence has been explained as; "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." World report on violence and health (WRVH)


However violence in a broad sense is not just limited to the likes of physical force but can also apply to forms of mental and verbal abuse. The latter are not usually concerns when looking at examples of violence in TV, film and games. Violence in these mediums is a substantially larger issue due to the argument of whether this violence is impacting on our society. 

The main issue when analysing the problem with violence in games is that of the realism of certain actions and whether this insights violent tendencies in its consumers. It has been argued that in certain circumstances scenarios in gaming have become so graphic to the point of almost a `simulation level`. 



The trend of creating games with hyper realistic graphics has made the experience of performing certain actions (namely violance in this example) more realistic by being more visually accurate. The inclusion of upgraded graphics has seen the rise of blood in acts of violence. You can see this in GTA IV, when you mow down an innocent pedestrian and their body crash's into your from bumper and dents your bonnet, leaving 
a blood stained mess across your windshield. This isn't photo realistic but is pretty close. GTA has always been known for its sex, drugs and violence but by todays standards the original Grand Theft Auto (1997) wouldn't really be considered a big issue.This may be down to the level of realism in it but the actions you can commit are fundamentally the same.

Grand Theft Auto

        

Grand Theft Auto IV

GTA: Lost & Dammed (Expansion)

"Up on thee sidewalk"

MISFITS' "Gameover" episode has taken the idea of life imitating games by implementing a character that believe he lives in a video game. Imitating the GTA series in direction of this characters view complete with map and mission updates. This episode was really enjoyable and definitely tests the boundaries of violence in games.

*SPOILERS

Tim thinks hes living in a game.

Use of CGI to implement the game aspect.

*Tim's POV; he believes Kelly is his ex Roxy that betrayed him on their wedding day so knocks her out and kidnaps her. 

Thoughts

I feel that the distinctive subtraction of actual transferable psychical input within a game creates a natural barrier between the direct simulation of certain violent actions. You're aware that your playing a game. Not to say the visual stimulation from a game isn't the reason why certain extreme violance is more widely available to audiences that may not of been aware of such actions. I personally feel that games can not be blamed as a sole reason for an individuals actions, the interactive nature does not implement anymore influence then if you where to watch a movie with a high level of violence.

Saying this whilst researching about the impact of  game interaction on players I stumbled across a blog entry by  mandytoomy that got me thinking. In the blog she speaks about going on a retreat as a high school teacher with students and performing an exercise where by they separate the boys and the girls and then asked them to talk about negatives messages they had encountered about the opposite sex. Some of the examples that were given where `Rape Simulation Games`. I wasnt really aware of these really existing, it was really a major shock to hear that they had been made (I mean if theres an idea its bound to of been made) but what shocked me more was that it was commonly played and joked about amongst assumable young boys. Whether these jokes were in jest or not isnt really the point but more the fact it was acceptable and `normal` to simulate violent sex. 


I personally dont think violence in games strongly encourages anyone but with the likes of these `Rape Simulations` perhaps games help to normalizes the concept of a recently inconceivable act. 

INTERTEXTUALITY

Intertextuality is the act of Text (the 'subject') existing in more then one possible place whilst being a reference to the original (or in some instances this could be an inspiration from something). Examples could be a cameo in a TV show, the remake of a Film, the adaptation of a film into a game, literary reference, a painting, different interpretations of a character/idea.
These are all examples because there is an origin to the 'model' (the 'model' being the 'representation' of the subject in its new environment) or have been inspired as a result of viewing the 'subject' (designing an environment for a game after visiting an exotic location), this is a conclusion I came to after encountering a quote from a slide in the lecture;

‘The fundamental concept of intertextuality is that no text, much as it might like to appear so, is original and unique-in-itself; rather it is a tissue of inevitable, and to an extent unwitting, references to and quotations from other texts.’

- Graham Allen, ‘Intertextuality’

'Text', when describing intertextuality, could refer to a number of 'subjects' (dialog, imagery, costume, composition, meaning ect.) and is relevant within a variety of different mediums such as; 

- Literary Culture; novels, poetry ect.

-Modern cultural artefacts; film, game, product design ect.

Another example of intertextuality is the way we know someone is a villain. For example here is Scar from the Lion King, you know that hes the bad guy because he has black fur, a negative expression and the scar also implies this a little, you would also know this whilst watching the film based on his voice and movements ect. (this is essentially semiotics again). The way we have recognised these things however is from previous encounters with other villains, we use this knowledge to make an assumption about Scar which males this a part of Intertextuality.

http://www.funnyvideos.net.au/images/scar21.jpg

Examples of intertextuality may be less effective when the viewer doesnt have a wide area of knowledge in certain fields (not knowing from which the 'model' is referenced). i.e.- you wouldnt find the new Marvel vs. Capcom (intertexuality in gaming) interesting if you didnt have previous knowledge of either series.  

Examples of Intertextuality

FILM

 The classic 1971 (left) Willy Wonker and its remake in 2005 (right).

Game

A franchise merge, Mario Sonic the Hedgehog join forces to... conquer the Olympics.

Kingdom Hearts franchise is the intertextual result of Final Fantasy and Disney.

The original Cloud Strife (left) and the adaptation from Kingdoms Hearts (Right). 

TV

Family Guys tribute to Star Wars

Useful resources I encountered.

http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1229 - Intertextuality, Graham Allen

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem09.html - Semiotics for Beginners, Daniel Chandler

SEMIOTICS (Very late submission)

First of all I would like to look into the first part of the lecture (about two weeks ago -_-) which was looking into the subject of Communication. 

Communication
The first exercise we did was quite interesting; some people had to turn away from the front of the lecture hall so people behind could explain an image to them, which they had to draw according to the other persons instructions. I was one of the people that had to turn around, my end result wasn't too far off surprisingly. This exercise showed the use of communication by means of an end result. You could see how well someone was able to communicate what was on screen and in how much detail, this exercise also showed how people interpret information they are given (which is in essence Semiotics) by comparing the drawn images to the original.

We were then introduced to the basic principles of Communication;
 - A common language is needed to communicate (Vocally - English etc. or another form i.e. Binary)
 - You must have two points in which the information is moved between, these are called the Transmitter and Receiver. 
 - The channel is which the information is carried is called the Medium.
 - If the message has changed between transmitter and receiver then is has been effected by Noise (i.e. static on the radio)


Semiotics 
* Semiotics is a science that was proposed in the early 1900s by the Swish Linguist; Ferdinand de Saussure and the American Pragmatist; Charles Sander Piece. Saussure believed there was no relation between the Signifier and the Signified. Piece believed there were three kinds of signs and the group in which the sign was allocated was as result of how the Referent (sign) and the Meaning are connected.

We then moved on to Semiotics which was explained in a few ways; The Study of Meaning, Sign Interpretation/ How we Process signs. My personal interpretation is, Semiotics is the process of observing and interpreting signs relating to a subject matter.
Firstly the two main aspects of semiotics were explained;
   - Signifier, Physical presence (word or symbol)
   - Signified, Meaning carried (actual thing or mental concept)

          C A T              

*The word CAT is meant to signify the idea of a cat (right) however the fact that this is an image of a "Cat" also makes it a signifier itself. They are however different kinds of signifiers.


Our lecturer then spoke about different kinds of Signifiers; Iconic and Arbitrary (Symbolic).

Example From above;
-An image of a Cat is classed as iconic because it has a strong relation to the original subject (it is essentially a direct representation of the cat) but can still be classed as slightly arbitrary as it is not completely true to its origins (its just a picture i.e. doesnt share the same mass as a real cat).

-The word CAT is more arbitrary then an image because it does not represent the cat fully (does not look, sound, smell etc. like a cat) but still has the initial notion of representing one.

In my own time I looked a little closer into this subject, I looked at Charles Sander Piece's idea of three different kinds of signs; - Iconic *resembling the sign/similarity (photos, maps, diagrams)
                                    - Index *refer to the actual link *no similarity (i.e. a logo of a battery to indicate how much battery life for a phone is left)
                                    - Symbol  *word/text *can be governed by law, rule, culture, convention, religion

Examples of Semiotics
Semiotics are used in everything as a way of processing information and interpreting it to make a conclusion about something.When looking at the text bellow you would assume by the font and composition that it is derived from a comic book or maybe even cartoon.

http://pizzabytheslice.com/img/posts/blambot-marooned-on-mars.jpg

You would assume that the Sepiroth bellow is a "bad guy" or "villain" because of his costume; wears black, the shapes in his clothes are pointed/jagged, the red detailing (assuming red symbolizes danger). A less obvious representation is the "one wing" which is black and represents a fallen angel (although you wouldnt necessarily know this unless you already knew the character). You could perhaps also tell he is a villain by his expression and his stance.

          http://www.123backgrounds.com/freebg/6728.jpg

*To help me better understand Semiotics I looked at youtube video entitled; Semiotics: the study of signs, created by Matt Dewey, Erin Monnie and Eddie Cordtz.

REALISM (Last weeks Lecture)

I find the subject of  Realism quite complex and sometimes even confusing but find it fascinating at the same time. I kinda see it as a way of looking at things by gauging how close it is to the "real thing", like realism in a game where there are super accurate reloads of a gun, which is essentially imitating reality. I found the story of  Zeuxis and Parrhasius competing to see who could imitate life more accurately highly interesting as it encourages the same idea of  Illusionism. This is also supported in Aristotle's ‘On the Art of Poetry’; man is fixated on re-representing themselves and the world around them. This is an interesting concept with my thoughts centring around how even though we live and essentially that proves that we "are" we are fixated on proving we exist by documenting everything. Of course things like pictures are taken to remind us of good times and memories but it is almost as if by doing this we're trying to reassure ourselves that we are real i.e "I have done things and I have proof of this so I was there and I am here now".

I like the concept of Realism also being (especially in creative circles) a persons adaptation of  the current reality; imitating reality or certain aspects and manipulating them into their own point of view. I found this in the hyper-realistic artwork of Ron Mueck. I think his art is absolutely amazing, the level of realism in the hair and proportions of features are astounding but even the texture of the skin looks like it would be soft to the touch, his work looks like it could just stand up at any point and wonder off! However he plays around with scale to encourage emotion or to simply make you think not just about the piece more but think deeper into the idea of morality. This makes me feel that another aspect of  Realism could even be said to be a questioning of current realities or testing boundaries.

Artwork by Ron Mueck:

I found some artwork by Mark Jenkins that was really cool, i feel it is another form of imitating life and manipulating it even to the point where the subjects are placed in real environments but some unusual situations.

http://twistedsifter.com/2009/10/art-with-packaging-tape-mark-jenkins/

In yesterdays seminar we discussed the subject of Realism in games, about how developers are obsessed with creating more and more realistic experiences either graphically or the way you interact with things like objects, other characters or environments. It has been said that games are becoming too real but I feel that first and foremost a game is what it is; a game. You dont sit down to a game and say "Hey I'm really slaying this gargantuan beast!" although the way your character is moving is super realistic or the way the blood spews out of the monster is just right. The idea of games becoming too real is obviously more relevant to games actually imitating real things that are capable of happening like war (being able to shoot people ect) but these are still not real things that everyday people are susceptible to but the debate is about whether creating games like this is encouraging peoples behaviour into thinking more in this way. Like I said before I dont really believe this, if people are going to go on mad rampages then they had tendencies to do this before hand, not too say a game (could even be classed as a simulation) could not enrich their ideas to do this but I think in no way it could possible spout entirely new ideas.
I think some of the best games adapt reality with un-real things or integrate real assets into a make believe world. This makes you want to immerse yourself  into an entirely new world because there is the spectacle of new exciting things but there are familiar things you can cling onto so you still feel connected rather than lost. This is what I feel the whole point of gaming is, you play to get lost, to discover new things. Why bother play a game that looks hyper realistic when your simply sitting there pressing buttons. This is why game play is integral, you cant just rely on something looking nice without the muscle behind it, plus once a game is "so real its like real life" it becomes boring, you dont want to wait around for things or do tedious little tasks. Games can be highly involving though and perhaps these new found hyper-realistic aspects are dragging more people in but then I think back to old games like Tetras and  maybe even things like Sonic the Hedgehog. these games had a low level of "reality" in them but were still highly addictive and you would get lost in their tiny worlds.
And to be honest when a game is created effectively, with believable and exciting content  (such as characters, environments, back story) and is capable of making you feel emotion then it should be classed a reality in its own right.