The link is here.There are also some interesting articles here:
http://wp.nmc.org/communication/section/reading/
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Twitter and Online Communications
Here's a diagram I found about the continuum of online communication, from dictatorial to conversational.
The link is here.
There are also some interesting articles here:
http://wp.nmc.org/communication/section/reading/
The link is here.There are also some interesting articles here:
http://wp.nmc.org/communication/section/reading/
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Sport and Space
Maybe this is a departure from our usual subjects. Maybe it's just part of a conversation we thought we'd finished many years ago...
A wise friend of mine once mentioned a wise friend of his who 'thought about football in a really interesting way'. From hazy memories of what may have been a hazy drunken conversation in a hazy pub in my hazy youth, the idea was to consider football in terms of space. We discussed how our thoughts on chess/ go/ othello were about controlling space, not about controlling the individual 'players' on the 'pitch'.
These thoughts came back to me whilst playing my recent purchase of the computer game "Pro Evolution Soccer 2008" for the Nintendo Wii. The way in which the gamer controls the game is totally different to all other football games I've ever played. Traditionally, playing a football computer game means controlling the individual players on the pitch, making them pass or dribble or shoot or tackle. You can pass in a particular direction, but can't control the space, only the players. In this new Wii game, the gamer controls the space. Say your midfielder has the ball: firstly you point somewhere that you want him to dribble to. At the same time, however, you tell your other players where to run (e.g. run into space on the wing, or run wide to draw the defender with you to create a new space for the midfielder to run into). When defending, you do not control one individual player, but rather allocate man-marking or zonal/ space marking by directing players. This may not sound it, but it's potentially revolutionary.
I will say that this way of controlling the space rather than the players. I've repeatedly said that you direct individual players where to go, and in taht way control the space. In this way, the game seems more like the chess/ go/ othello analogy I mentioned in the first paragraph: we are using the pieces to control and command the space.
Needless to say, I am crap at this new game.
This got me to thinking about other sports and space. Football (the real game, not computer game versions of the sport) is never discussed as being about space, but rather about how players find space/ pass into space/ run into space. which got me thinking about other sports and spaces.
How would a sport use space more than players? To return to the chess/ go/ othello idea, space needs to be understood in terms of hot/ cold spaces; or busy/ quiet; fast/ slow... This binary is the basis of what I mean. Then there's the tensions between these spaces, their independence and interdependence.
So which sports are more about space and less about players?
Hockey - Is all about the players and the speed of the connections between them. It's not spatial: it doesn't use cold spaces, although (as a team-formation sport, there is a certain degress of tension, independency and interdepency between areas and space across the pitch). On a scale of 1-10, this sport is a 3.
Rugby - I think may be more spatial than I first realised. Yes, it is the players who are the agents and who control the space, but it uses space in a weird way: thinking in terms of scrums, passing down the line, and line-outs/ throw-ins/ whatever they're called, the players all seek to create spaces that they can then command. Kicking into touch brings in to play ideas of using cold spaces to change pace and change attacking tactics. Plus, like Go, the game is about lines, control, and the gaps between the individual components. 8/10 (it would score more, but I'm not sure the players are self-aware enough to warrant more).
Cricket - Is entirely about space. Teams play areas as quiet spaces, busier spaces, faster spaces etc. The scoring system itself defines the game as spatial. 9/10
Tennis - This seems to be a spatial game (t's all about exploiting areas of weakness and capitalising on empty spaces) but I don't think it fits the criteria of using cold spaces (altlough it does change pace and rhythm, I'm not sure it uses space so much as speed to do this). 4/10
Curling - The sport of the gods. I love the way that, once the 'bowler' has released the stone, the two sweepers play the space, directing the stone as a devastating and destructive force, or using it to build the next bowl, or using it as a blocker. Some shots are played to keep the stone in the area, whilst others are intended to go out of the area. I can see this as highly spatial in every way - 10/10 (high score bolstered by coolness)
This is not a very insightful post, nor particuarly intellectual or academic. Plus our blog seems to have been established on topics around the digital. However, I wonder if this blog should extend to wider issues? Your thoughts, as ever, will be gratefully received.
A wise friend of mine once mentioned a wise friend of his who 'thought about football in a really interesting way'. From hazy memories of what may have been a hazy drunken conversation in a hazy pub in my hazy youth, the idea was to consider football in terms of space. We discussed how our thoughts on chess/ go/ othello were about controlling space, not about controlling the individual 'players' on the 'pitch'.
These thoughts came back to me whilst playing my recent purchase of the computer game "Pro Evolution Soccer 2008" for the Nintendo Wii. The way in which the gamer controls the game is totally different to all other football games I've ever played. Traditionally, playing a football computer game means controlling the individual players on the pitch, making them pass or dribble or shoot or tackle. You can pass in a particular direction, but can't control the space, only the players. In this new Wii game, the gamer controls the space. Say your midfielder has the ball: firstly you point somewhere that you want him to dribble to. At the same time, however, you tell your other players where to run (e.g. run into space on the wing, or run wide to draw the defender with you to create a new space for the midfielder to run into). When defending, you do not control one individual player, but rather allocate man-marking or zonal/ space marking by directing players. This may not sound it, but it's potentially revolutionary.
I will say that this way of controlling the space rather than the players. I've repeatedly said that you direct individual players where to go, and in taht way control the space. In this way, the game seems more like the chess/ go/ othello analogy I mentioned in the first paragraph: we are using the pieces to control and command the space.
Needless to say, I am crap at this new game.
This got me to thinking about other sports and space. Football (the real game, not computer game versions of the sport) is never discussed as being about space, but rather about how players find space/ pass into space/ run into space. which got me thinking about other sports and spaces.
How would a sport use space more than players? To return to the chess/ go/ othello idea, space needs to be understood in terms of hot/ cold spaces; or busy/ quiet; fast/ slow... This binary is the basis of what I mean. Then there's the tensions between these spaces, their independence and interdependence.
So which sports are more about space and less about players?
Hockey - Is all about the players and the speed of the connections between them. It's not spatial: it doesn't use cold spaces, although (as a team-formation sport, there is a certain degress of tension, independency and interdepency between areas and space across the pitch). On a scale of 1-10, this sport is a 3.
Rugby - I think may be more spatial than I first realised. Yes, it is the players who are the agents and who control the space, but it uses space in a weird way: thinking in terms of scrums, passing down the line, and line-outs/ throw-ins/ whatever they're called, the players all seek to create spaces that they can then command. Kicking into touch brings in to play ideas of using cold spaces to change pace and change attacking tactics. Plus, like Go, the game is about lines, control, and the gaps between the individual components. 8/10 (it would score more, but I'm not sure the players are self-aware enough to warrant more).
Cricket - Is entirely about space. Teams play areas as quiet spaces, busier spaces, faster spaces etc. The scoring system itself defines the game as spatial. 9/10
Tennis - This seems to be a spatial game (t's all about exploiting areas of weakness and capitalising on empty spaces) but I don't think it fits the criteria of using cold spaces (altlough it does change pace and rhythm, I'm not sure it uses space so much as speed to do this). 4/10
Curling - The sport of the gods. I love the way that, once the 'bowler' has released the stone, the two sweepers play the space, directing the stone as a devastating and destructive force, or using it to build the next bowl, or using it as a blocker. Some shots are played to keep the stone in the area, whilst others are intended to go out of the area. I can see this as highly spatial in every way - 10/10 (high score bolstered by coolness)
This is not a very insightful post, nor particuarly intellectual or academic. Plus our blog seems to have been established on topics around the digital. However, I wonder if this blog should extend to wider issues? Your thoughts, as ever, will be gratefully received.
Sunday, 16 August 2009
an embodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life.
Wow, i seem to have hit your overdrive button! [Edit: Having now finished my post i take this back and apologise if you took offence as i appear to have written just as much if not more, and i am just as surprised! However, i will not apologise for the length of post as this sort of behaviour could result in creating short posts for no good reason accept laziness and not wanting to waste each others time. And, if you feel that way about my writing then we might as well end this whole thing right now! I am proud i have just spent 2 hours writing this!]
You have covered so much ground so quickly i do not know where to start!
Okay, firstly, i was quite drunk when i wrote that text and i think what i was trying to write was 'Are avatars starting to look more like people or are people starting to look more like avatars?'.
I was at a rock/goth/alt pub having a cigarette outside (such a great opportunity to observe!). I have been noticing how style is changing in all social groups, moving towards a more manicured, well groomed styling. Even groups who wish to appear subversive are starting to look so carefully created. Grunge is dead. In the Nineties we would let it all hang out, long hair, ripped jeans etc. I guess this can be traced back to the late 60's and seventies when being a 'long haired hippie' was a direct way to rebel against the conformity of the Fifties where everyone seemed to where a shirt and tie. Of course it can be argued that the affectation of the 'natural' is still just a style.
But anyway, i digress. I can not help but wonder whether this move towards precision styling for both men and women is somehow inspired by or at least related to the emergence of the virtual avatar - to the accuracy of the digital (binary) ones and zeros as opposed to analogue vaguity. Maybe i am over-observing a shift that is simply rebelling against the last fashion cycle. However, as more and more people - especially a younger generation who were born around the same time as the digital world - have become so used to looking at carefully constructed digital worlds, characters and even narratives. It seems like a natural move to express that aesthetically. Just as the textual language of the internet, 'LOL', 'RFOL' etc becomes part of everyday speech why not the visual language too?
I can not help but think of the PUA or Pick Up Artist phenomenon. A network of males who initially make contact online but then meet up and swap ideas about attracting the opposite sex. In the more extreme cases this is done by encouraging young, socially awkward males to create a 'handle'(or user name) for themselves. They are then encouraged to develop there own 'avatar' in the way they dress, act and speak. A more cohesive and yet exaggerated expression of their identity that is one step removed from themselves. As i see it the idea is to fictionalise part of there personality in order to make social interaction more easy. Maybe this is simply consciously going through a process that we all do anyway but the use of the very term 'avatar' to describe a real life person shows the way the virtual world can come to influence the way we think.
On a darker note, the Columbine killings were inspired by the Matrix on a very artificial level. They created a virtual world from the real. Literally recreating their school within a virtual reality program before the two came together with disastrous consequences. There is no doubt that the avatar in both the real and non-real worlds can be empowering. It derives this power by reducing everything to language but i can not help but wonder whether this process can be wholly positive. And here we find Baufrillard. I want to do the 'Baudrillard and Avatars' post but the words are so charged that i can only talk around it. Plus i feel that he has said it all already. Everything he says on simulation applies here. [Try these: 1 2 3 4]
I can not help but feel that in a world that seems ever more unstable with the perceived threats of ecological and financial meltdown along with the new hidden threat of terrorism that some comfort can be gained from appearing in the 'real' world as a character. The virtual world can feel more comforting because you are just an avatar, your true self is concealed unless you want to show it. It can feel lighter - its just words not me! To take this feeling in to the 'real world' could be very comforting, could take the pressure off, or put another layer of protection between you and the world. Instead of swords, metal armour and banners we have slick hair, perfect makeup and skin, fantastical clothing.
Either way, it is an important, if not the most important field for the contemporary exploration of self. Whether you participate in a virtual culture yourself or not the influence of the ideas used there will become more and more central to our notion of self. Mainly i say this because everyone who does enter one of these worlds is forced to think of themselves as a language. They must go through the process of thinking about themselves as a language. They must attempt to express some part of themselves - be it idealised or not - in a place where expression is not limited by circumstance or culture. A coming to terms with the language of the real in the realm of the personal - the notions of real and unreal/non-real/virtual are almost irrelevant here.
Zizek and avatars
I think Slavoj Zizek on the avatar is essential. As he says in A Perverts Guide to Cinema: 'I want a third pill'. It is not as simple as one world being 'real' and the other being 'fake'. The Second World requires 'real' structures in order to exist. Consumerism, social etiquette etc are all rules participated in by users of virtual worlds in order to create communication. There must be some kind of structure in order to be able to make sense to one an other, just like in the real world. Therefore, the real is an integral part of the 'virtual' so called fictional worlds that have sprung up on the internet. The virtual world is real because we invest in it as we would the real world. We can laugh, cry, love hate etc.
Conversely, It is just as easy to turn the real world in to a fantasy to make it work. Zizek explores this idea in terms of the Matrix, power structures and relationships between the 2 sexes but it applies to the avatar and the virtual world too. The idea of identity in the real world is becoming more and more complex (maybe that is the wrong word) it is becoming more blurred. Male, female, straight, gay, black and white. On a physical level it is easier to change your outward appearance than ever before. Plastic surgery and operations like laser eye treatment are becoming more and more common place. Cheap clothing is everywhere. It is becoming easier to see a world in which we can go shopping for a 'real world' appearance as it is to in the 'virtual world'. I carefully choose not to use the word identity in place of appearance because there is a whole argument already in place about whether appearance equals identity already.
So we see the that we are already avatars and avatars are us. The virtual and real worlds just accentuate this relationship.
Avatars and capitalism
As far as i can tell consumer culture sells to the avatar (to the user) using the same structure as the real world: aspiration. In worlds such as Second Life the basics are given to the 'noob' in order that they can enter the world. But in order to appear 'cool' or 'individual' one must buy new clothes, skin etc using real money. The exact same can be said of the real world! And also, within the rules of consumer culture, you may find that your peers will comment on the fact that they do not appreciate your look etc. in other words they willingly perpetuate the system.
Whether the things we are encouraged to buy in the Second World are directly branded with a Nike Swoosh or are non-branded they are still bought with real money. But, returning to an earlier point - money itself is a mass delusion. Money itself has lost its 'real' value. On money in Great Britain it is written 'I promise to pay the bearer'. You could take a five pound note in to a Bank and they were obliged to give you £5 worth of gold. Do that now and you would be laughed at at best! Here again we see the fiction in the real world being transposed to the virtual world.
We construct our reality in the same way as we construct our fantasy: through language and imagination. The world does not move around us, we move the world to fit our perspective. This is how we can construct new worlds and realities in virtual space and fictions that guide our real lives. Sometimes the two inform each other because they are two sides of the same coin. How apt this simple expression is as alas, the final word must go to capitalism, consumerism has entwined itself around/through/on top of/IS this relationship and makes a quick buck out of both.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Avatars
A wise friend recently asked “Are people dressing more like their avatars?” and I pondered and went to sleep and woke up having dreamt of avatarian existentialism all night long.
I perceive avatars as:
The avatar’s function is as a representation of the user within the online environment. As such, the user imbues the avatar with qualities they want to project into that environment. The avatars have differing levels of relationship to the actual identity of the user.
Anyway, I chose to ignore linguistic avatars and focus on 2D icons (with some reference to 3D models).
Here I am, thinking:
And here:
And here:
And here:
I hadn’t read much on avatar theory, but thought that Baudrillard, Foucault, and a tiny sprinkling of Barthesian structrulist analysis provides a framework from which to understand avatars…
I see avatars as serving a psychological function and a social function.
I’ll deal with the social function first.
Social Function of Avatars
The avatar is a visual representation of the user that enables participation within the online environment. As such, it is a social tool.
It also acts as a calling card/ telephone number/ identification card etc, allowing others to find the user/ avatar.
At the same time, it provides a distancing device that turns person (user) into character (avatar). It is a fictionalising tool that creates a new reality.
I’ll use this as the basis from which to discuss the phenomenon of an avatar within the frameworks of a few theorists.
How and what do they mean?
What would Barthes say?
Avatars are a form of language; they operate as a sign system according to a grammar that can be read in simple structuralist semiotic terms.
The symbol of the avatar (signifier) points to the signified (the user), creating a sign. As with all signs, the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary, and the act of signification is determined (or at least accepted) by the culture/ language within which it is used.
The joy is that avatars often/ usually revel in their arbitrariness as a sign system: the ‘visual accuracy’ that might be assumed to influence a user’s creation of the avatar is often playfully disregarded and the avatar takes the form of an animal/ lego character… Avatars move/ play/ dance within the gap of the sign; the act of signification becomes the site of pleasure and play, the jouissance of the avatar.
C’eci n’est une pipe
The signifiers also become afloat from the signified. Avatars have their own names/ handles (such as in Second Life, where the list of surnames available restricts user choice, and also ensures an arbitrariness between avatar-name and user-name) and can be seen to have their own existence beyond the user. I am sure that research that asked users about their avatars would find that users often discuss their avatars as being distinct to themselves, as if they are real people separate from the user. To put it in different terms: as if the signifiers are separate from the signified.
In this way, avatars are wonderfully post-structuralist signs, with meaning existing at surface level.
What would Baudrillard add?
I’m not good on Baudrillard, so you’re going to have to help out here.
Here’s my reading.
I guess the place to start is the idea that with avatars, meaning/ reality has been replaced by signs/ simulacra. Avatars exist within the age of hyperreality, where the object/ reality of the user has been replaced by the symbol of the avatar.
I found a blog by an art student who uses Second Life and discusses her avatar thus: “I have often believed that my second life is more true than my real life… My avatar Gracie Kendal, is an extenstion (sic) of me. Her personality, the way she dresses, her art, her relationships, her house, her dogs… I don’t hide anything. Now sometimes that can get me into trouble…LOL (won’t go there!!) But for the most part… Gracie is true.”
(I like the fact that the blog is called ‘The Secret Life of Gracie Kendall’ and is named after the avatar, not the user.)
Presumably, a Baudrillardian reading would emphasise the replacement of reality with hyperreality/ simulacra; the replacement of truth with the symbol of truth…?
What would Foucault do?
Best be brief:
Foucault would love avatars. They are a site of power: users create their own identity, enacting agency (within the framework of the avatar-creating software/ interface). In that way, an avatar is an expression of the subject, within the dominant discourse. This needs developing.
Psychological Function of Avatars
I mentioned a long time ago (this was going to be a short post!) that avatars had two functions: a social function and a psychological function. Now to look quickly at the psychological function.
Avatars seem to operate somewhere between a mirror, an alter-ego and a pet. I’m sure Lacan, Freud and someone who specialises in pet-theory would be useful to discuss here. I am expert in none.
Avatars are created by the user, and the user is free to imbue the avatar with qualities that they wish to project within the online environment. The degree of agency that the user has is sometimes limited (e.g. an avatar created using the lego avatar-generator has only a limited range of possibilities), however the area of interest here is the way in which users choose to project themselves within the online environment.
My avatars above mostly reflect my real image/ identity/ habits from the real world (white boy; casually dressed; shaved head; likes meat). How would it be different if I’d created an avatar where I was female/ black/ disabled/ non-human? Why do some users create avatars that are similar to their own identity, whilst others create avatars that are very different to their real identity?
I guess all sorts of words and theories could be applied: escapism; aspirations; idealism; experimentalism… I don’t feel the need to be derogatory here: avatars clearly fulfil some sort of need for the users. I sense that the use of avatars that are very different to the user’s appearance are a form of liberated playfulness of signification, and that users enjoy playing within the gap of meaning.
Avatars that take the forms of profile pictures (like on Facebook and MySpace) are kind of like wearing your best clothes to non-uniform day at school: users want to present certain aspects of their personality (real, imagined or aspirational) to the society they interact with.
There’s a need for a whole ethnographic study on users and avatars.
Existentialism and Avatars
Fuck yeah.
“Are people dressing more like their avatars?”
Hopefully.
I propose a few comments on related topics. Proposed titles:
Some articles I’d like to read but haven’t had time yet:
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.32337.pdf
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.16435.pdf
I perceive avatars as:
- Text-based ‘handles’ which users may appoint as their name on a website/ forum/ MySpace page, or even as an email address (linguistic avatars?)
- A 2D icon (pictorial avatars? Image avatars?) These could be profile pictures, graphical images used as signatures, or characters created specifically for the purpose. Might accompany a handle, appear as a Facebook/ MySpace pic…
- A 3D image/ model/ character
The avatar’s function is as a representation of the user within the online environment. As such, the user imbues the avatar with qualities they want to project into that environment. The avatars have differing levels of relationship to the actual identity of the user.
Anyway, I chose to ignore linguistic avatars and focus on 2D icons (with some reference to 3D models).
Here I am, thinking:
And here:
And here:
And here:
I hadn’t read much on avatar theory, but thought that Baudrillard, Foucault, and a tiny sprinkling of Barthesian structrulist analysis provides a framework from which to understand avatars…
I see avatars as serving a psychological function and a social function.
I’ll deal with the social function first.
Social Function of Avatars
The avatar is a visual representation of the user that enables participation within the online environment. As such, it is a social tool.
It also acts as a calling card/ telephone number/ identification card etc, allowing others to find the user/ avatar.
At the same time, it provides a distancing device that turns person (user) into character (avatar). It is a fictionalising tool that creates a new reality.
I’ll use this as the basis from which to discuss the phenomenon of an avatar within the frameworks of a few theorists.
How and what do they mean?
What would Barthes say?
Avatars are a form of language; they operate as a sign system according to a grammar that can be read in simple structuralist semiotic terms.
The symbol of the avatar (signifier) points to the signified (the user), creating a sign. As with all signs, the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary, and the act of signification is determined (or at least accepted) by the culture/ language within which it is used.
The joy is that avatars often/ usually revel in their arbitrariness as a sign system: the ‘visual accuracy’ that might be assumed to influence a user’s creation of the avatar is often playfully disregarded and the avatar takes the form of an animal/ lego character… Avatars move/ play/ dance within the gap of the sign; the act of signification becomes the site of pleasure and play, the jouissance of the avatar.
C’eci n’est une pipe
The signifiers also become afloat from the signified. Avatars have their own names/ handles (such as in Second Life, where the list of surnames available restricts user choice, and also ensures an arbitrariness between avatar-name and user-name) and can be seen to have their own existence beyond the user. I am sure that research that asked users about their avatars would find that users often discuss their avatars as being distinct to themselves, as if they are real people separate from the user. To put it in different terms: as if the signifiers are separate from the signified.
In this way, avatars are wonderfully post-structuralist signs, with meaning existing at surface level.
What would Baudrillard add?
I’m not good on Baudrillard, so you’re going to have to help out here.
Here’s my reading.
I guess the place to start is the idea that with avatars, meaning/ reality has been replaced by signs/ simulacra. Avatars exist within the age of hyperreality, where the object/ reality of the user has been replaced by the symbol of the avatar.
I found a blog by an art student who uses Second Life and discusses her avatar thus: “I have often believed that my second life is more true than my real life… My avatar Gracie Kendal, is an extenstion (sic) of me. Her personality, the way she dresses, her art, her relationships, her house, her dogs… I don’t hide anything. Now sometimes that can get me into trouble…LOL (won’t go there!!) But for the most part… Gracie is true.”
(I like the fact that the blog is called ‘The Secret Life of Gracie Kendall’ and is named after the avatar, not the user.)
Presumably, a Baudrillardian reading would emphasise the replacement of reality with hyperreality/ simulacra; the replacement of truth with the symbol of truth…?
What would Foucault do?
Best be brief:
Foucault would love avatars. They are a site of power: users create their own identity, enacting agency (within the framework of the avatar-creating software/ interface). In that way, an avatar is an expression of the subject, within the dominant discourse. This needs developing.
Psychological Function of Avatars
I mentioned a long time ago (this was going to be a short post!) that avatars had two functions: a social function and a psychological function. Now to look quickly at the psychological function.
Avatars seem to operate somewhere between a mirror, an alter-ego and a pet. I’m sure Lacan, Freud and someone who specialises in pet-theory would be useful to discuss here. I am expert in none.
Avatars are created by the user, and the user is free to imbue the avatar with qualities that they wish to project within the online environment. The degree of agency that the user has is sometimes limited (e.g. an avatar created using the lego avatar-generator has only a limited range of possibilities), however the area of interest here is the way in which users choose to project themselves within the online environment.
My avatars above mostly reflect my real image/ identity/ habits from the real world (white boy; casually dressed; shaved head; likes meat). How would it be different if I’d created an avatar where I was female/ black/ disabled/ non-human? Why do some users create avatars that are similar to their own identity, whilst others create avatars that are very different to their real identity?
I guess all sorts of words and theories could be applied: escapism; aspirations; idealism; experimentalism… I don’t feel the need to be derogatory here: avatars clearly fulfil some sort of need for the users. I sense that the use of avatars that are very different to the user’s appearance are a form of liberated playfulness of signification, and that users enjoy playing within the gap of meaning.
Avatars that take the forms of profile pictures (like on Facebook and MySpace) are kind of like wearing your best clothes to non-uniform day at school: users want to present certain aspects of their personality (real, imagined or aspirational) to the society they interact with.
There’s a need for a whole ethnographic study on users and avatars.
Existentialism and Avatars
Fuck yeah.
“Are people dressing more like their avatars?”
Hopefully.
I propose a few comments on related topics. Proposed titles:
- Baudrillard and Avatars (my limited knowledge means I can’t really develop much further).
- Existentialism and Avatars
- Nihilism and Avatars
- The Ontology of the Avatar
- Advertising and Avatars: Branding Your Identity (Adidas and FCUK are dressing Yahoo users' avatars in branded clothing. From the pitch: "And now you can make your Avatar just as stylish as you - with the very latest FCUK Spring & Summer 2005 Collection of clothes." - http://adverlab.blogspot.com/2005/10/branding-avatars.html)
- Avatars and Character Theory for computer games
Some articles I’d like to read but haven’t had time yet:
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.32337.pdf
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.16435.pdf
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Men and words
An essay in the language of Youtubian
well
thats what the guy did
he just let free all wat he kept there for good and become tyler
or somethin
lol movie??? but, what happens when the world or some part of it, doesn't love the person who knows themselves and the world? I need some handy wipes....that's soooo funny it could be a weapon. teh same thing happend 2 me!!!! It´s quite funny and good for elementary Ss. VERY INSIGHTSIVE You have no choice LMAO freakin ugly game....The movie is awsome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)