The image above is my visual representation of several of McLuhan's probes relating to media. It is supposed to convey the idea of the degree of influence that the media has on our perception of things. The media influences how we act, how we dress, and even our values. The image also conveys the idea that our technology; our media, is like an iconic representation of humanity. We are technology.
The two probes that the image above best convey would be:
9) The most human thing about us is our technology.
11) The media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. The medium is the massage.
Try out McLuhan’s Tetrad on two technologies/media. Sketch out the chain of effects as you apply the Tetrad (don't just stop at one—try three cycles). Try applying the Tetrad for game design, either in the form of the game, or in relation to objects/technologies/ideas within the game worlds you are creating. How could the Tetrad be used as a brainstorming/ ideation tool? Write down your thoughts on using the Tetrad in this capacity.
We don't need to "make" the tetrads an ideation tool, because just by using the tetrads already helps with ideation, as the tetrads makes us break down the subject at hand into simpler things. The tetrads helps us to see the components of a subject more clearly, helping us to draw more links between the subject itself and other relevant objects. It also helps get our minds churning when we form our tetrads, which is an aid in ideation by itself.
One way to interprete McLuhan’s ideas is that he considers technology as a language, and hence there is a pattern or grammar to technological expression. If gaming is considered a language, then what are its parts and the patterns that connect, and what form does this language create (metaphorically at the very least)? What is the game's equivalent of a word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, leading up to the complete work? In this light, could you consider McLuhan a structuralist? Discuss the implications of this interpretation of McLuhan's world-view.
It is impossible for me to draw an in-depth comparison between gaming and language, as I do not know much about the science behind language. What I do know about language, is that it has a certain structure to it, regardless of what language it is. The difference between languages mostly lie only in their syntax and vocabulary.
Gaming, like language, has a certain structure to it. A game concept is comprised of two things, the game mechanics and its context. While different, the game's mechanics and context come together to form a complete game. The game's mechanics is akin to the language's grammar or syntax, while the context is like the vocabulary. The game's mechanics is like a basic structure that enables the game to work, while the context gives meaning to the game itself.
The similarity that I can draw between a language and a game ends here. I don't think it is particularly useful to represent the parts of gaming metaphorically with the parts of language. Gaming and language are intrinsically different. They serve different purposes, thus their inner parts are vastly different from each other. To try and make a metaphor out of these parts will leave these metaphors with little meaning, as the whole point of a metaphor is to portray an intrinsic similarity between two objects. When the similarities between an item and its metaphorical representation is not resonant, then the metaphor becomes pointless.
I consider McLuhan a structuralist, as he uses a very "mechanical" way of interpreting technology. Like gears in clockwork, he believes that technology has patterns and trends--that the parts of technology are linked together.
His structuralist thinking means that his world view has the same implications as those of a structuralist. Seeing everything as a "gear" in clockwork is a great creator of ideas, in my opinion. I believe that there is a certain order that exists within our universe, and being able to spot patterns allows us to better uncover this elegant order that works in the universe, allowing us to see more things. Care must be taken though, as trying too hard to spot patterns may yield reverse results, causing us to fault as we try too hard to find non-existant patterns.
Create a “Mythic-metaphor” representing a current problem or issue in the world.
The deep doodle above is my mythic-metaphor, representing the problem of terrorism in the world. It shows an angelic figure battling against a devilish figure--a representation of the symbolic "good versus evil" scenario that is often presented in olden myths and contemporary media. It is an accurate depiction, seeing as how terrorists in our world today seem to have an unquenchable fixation on destroying things while the rest of the world are trying their hardest to stop these terrorists. The terrorists play the side of evil, hell-bent on destroying existence, while we play the side of good, trying to save existence.
One notable quirk about the image is how the angel is portrayed as masculine and more aggressive than the devil, despite it being the ambassador of peace. It underlines a basic flaw in our perception of good and evil. In the media, the main character is always portrayed as the saviour, the one who redeems people from the darkness and saves the world from it. At the same time, he is also the one who vanquishes the antagonist, who often is portrayed as the embodiment of evil. The irony of it all is that the act of vanquishing the antagonist sinks him down to the antagonist's level by making him the killer, yet people are perfectly fine with it. In the real world, society labels the people who are "good", and the people who are "evil", and it deems itself worthy of vanquishing those who are "evil". What gives society the right to determine who is beyond hope of saving? Are the people who are labelled "evil" in society made by society's prosecution? Perhaps good and evil isn't that simple after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment