Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
 
The time now is Wed Nov 13, 2024 12:31 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)
View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Meta » General META Discussion
Politics in ARGs
Moderators: imbri, ndemeter
View previous topicView next topic
Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts]  
Author Message
addlepated
Unfictologist


Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Posts: 1885
Location: Austin, Texas

Politics in ARGs

Here's a thread from Television Without Pity about political statements in Six Feet Under. I thought it was an interesting discussion with viewpoints on every side, but it seemed to me that many people said that strong political statements said within the context of the show tended to bring the viewer out of the imaginary show-world and break the spell.

http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3118169

What do you think in terms of politics and ARGs?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:57 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
jamesi
Sentient Being


Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Posts: 2195
Location: Canadia

I think the last thing we need is a differentiation between red state games and blue state games. Wink
_________________
Digital Trail | Twitter | Retired ARGFest-o-Con 2012 Project Manager

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:46 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
joebrent
Unfettered


Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 640
Location: New York, sometimes

Quote:
It's reasonable for a family to discuss politics at one time or another. But, there is a reason there is a saying about not discussing politics or religion in a bar! One minute it's a discussion, the next--- you're picking glass out of your hair. I have seen this happen (living in Chicago), first hand more than once. Sure, we're all enlightened intelligent people, and we are not sitting in a bar, but we were picking glass out of our hair (so to speak) when we got shut down. I just prefer my daily dose of politics separate from my tv/escape time. I like a hour of mindless bullshit every once in awhile.


Deal with this question a lot.

I'll skip ahead to the end of the logical stream, or at least, where I usually end up. If you want pure escapism, it's not hard to find. Pulp novels, video games, Zucker/Abrams, Bruckheimer/Bay, even Takashi Miike if that's your thing. No judgements here, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But anything that is constructed with even a little bit of intelligence will inevitably ask difficult questions, and the truth of the matter is that as a willing participant, you lose the right to be offended by the answers. If you don't like the leftist politics of Six Feet Under, don't watch. If you think South Park is too un-P.C. for you, don't watch that either. What plays in Greenwich Village might not play in Peoria, and it's insane to hold one opinion to scorn, but not the experiences which shaped that opinion.

Three concurrent truths:

1) Nobody holds dominion over ideas -- quite rightly so -- and since ideas are the result of a lifetime of observations, no one person should hold dominion over right and wrong either. What plays in Greenwich Village might not play in Peoria, and it's insane for either side to hold the other to scorn for a mere difference of opinion. There but for the serendipity of circumstance go we.

2) But then, if the unwilling participants turn away, aren't we just preching to the choir? Well, that's how you get them to sing. Tough. And if you think that leads to a partisan, divided society, I got news for you, buddy: T'was ever thus, and such is politics in the age of Feiler's Faster. It only seems more partisan because you're getting your news at an exponentially faster speed.

3) There is no such thing as thought without bias. Again, who you are, what you are, and the sum total of your experience is the equation that drives every act, every idea, and every judgement you will ever make. It's senseless to try to avoid it; the least we can do is appreciate the process that went into it.

An example. Hate to dredge up the old 'media bias' thing, but it's instructive. Here is the first bit of the story on North Korea's decision to resume disarmament talks, as reported by the New York Times at the moment I'm writing this post:

Quote:
BEIJING, July 10 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of the United States welcomed today North Korea's agreement to resume disarmament talks late this month but warned of difficult negotiations.

"It's only a start," Ms. Rice told journalists in Beijing after meetings with senior Chinese leaders on the talks.


And again, but this time from Fox News:

Quote:
BEIJING — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cautioned Sunday that North Korea's decision to resume nuclear disarmament talks does not mean the United States is any closer to its long-standing goal of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

"It's only a start," Rice said at a news conference. "It is the goal of the talks to have progress."


Essentially the same, but the subtle differences reveal the bias. The NYT, with an international readership and a liberal, cosmopolitan base, described Condi as "welcoming" North Korea's ouvertures, thus inviting a multilateralist interpretation of the event, even going so far as to repeat that the statement was made in Beijing after meeting with Chinese officials. Fox News, with its more conservative, US-specific readership, is more foreboding: Rice "cautioned" against any such interpretation, and looked forward to "progress," a political euphemism for "compliance," and gives the impression that the statement emanated from the White House itself.

(Here, of course, I'm giving away my own biases, which I hope you'll forgive me. In my defense, I live in New York, not Peoria, and therefore share many of the NYT's biases.)

This isn't pandering, nor is is propoganda. It's just two major news outlets writing to their audience. Nothing wrong with that, either. Frankly it's not the media that's biased so much as it is ourselves. You can't paint a target around your arrow and then tell everyone else they missed.

And an ARG isn't that dissimilar. By definition, it is a genre that requires a great deal of sophisticated thought on the part of all participants, on each side of the curtain. How can we expect pre-judgements not to seep through? If politics subtly creep into an ARG, it's because they're devised by bloody human beings, not automatons. And if they should overtly manifest in a future ARG, so be it. Remember, the act of participation means you lose the right to complain about it. You don't like the bias of the PM? Change the bloody channel.

"But dude -- is it the function of art to express a political opinion?"

Thoughts are the things that happen in your own mind -- "Like a headache, but with pictures." Once you communicate your thoughts to another warm body, it becomes an idea. Art is just a grandiose term for the act of communication.

The sun looks beautiful as it sets over the GW Bridge outside my apartment. That's a thought. I take a picture of the sunset and share it with people -- that's an idea, and that's art, clumsily rendered though it may be. Disagree? Other artists have. One of my favorite film directors, Werner Herzog, made films that depicted nature as an untamable beast, the manifestation of a chaotic universe in your own backyard. He would no doubt look at a picture of the sun setting over the bridge and interpret it as man's victory over nature: "The sun sets, but the bridge remains." That's his bias, and I'm fine with it.

A musician sees black dots on a page, applies his/her bias to it. Seemingly abstract concepts, such as, "How do I play this note?" take on a very real significance when your idea of how to play the note and my idea of how to play the note differ.

I just saw the movie Kinsey last night. Is it art? Of course it is. Is it politics? You betcha. Are there those who disagree with Kinsey's politics? Certainly. My only beef is with those who put down his science as a means of attacking his politics. The art is irreproachable, people -- the conclusions are not, and shouldn't be.

I guess, to make a long story short, I always come back to this point: the worst thing that can or should happen is that someone changes the channel. Better than that is that someone gets both your art and your politics. But better still is the person who gets your art but disagrees with your politics; that's the point at which dialogue begins, and it's the only way anyone ever learned anything.
_________________
http://www.josephbrent.com

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:11 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
imbriModerator
Entrenched


Joined: 21 Sep 2002
Posts: 1182
Location: wonderland

Well said Joe. I agree very much with you, despite our different biases - Green Acres is the place for me.

I don't believe that all stories have to have an inherrant bias, but it is difficult to write without one. It takes a very talented author to do so. It takes an even more talented author to construct a story that encourages thought and discussion of a philosophical nature without driving you to one side of the debate or another. It is something that I've always wanted to be a part off, in an ARG, but don't have the ability (or faith in my ability) to do so and it's not something that one should do just half assed.

It's one of the reasons that the Beast was so magical for me. Here was a story with many plot lines surrounding a world struggling with civil rights... should sentient machines have the same rights as humans. The issue was presented in a variety of ways, some incredibly overt and some with a soft hand. When it came time to vote, I know that I wasn't the only one torn on the issue. The message was brilliant and, in many ways, it was left to the players to create. I still get all crazy thinking about it. Thousands of virtual strangers gathered together around a single event discussing, fairly and with respect, human rights on a basic scale. It was an amazing part of the game for me and yet the game didn't require one to participate in the discussion or even to participate in thinking about the issue. But for those of us that enjoy such discussion, it was an option and it was presented in such a way that I never felt as if I was recieving some sermon from Microsoft (at that point, it wasn't Sean & Elan behind the game for me, it was Microsoft). In fact, despite the four years that have passed, there are still times when I think about the choice that I made, the vote that I cast. Did I make the right decision? If I was ever in such a situation, would I make the same one?

Four years and I still just don't know.

- b

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:00 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
oliverkeers13
Entrenched


Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 917
Location: London, UK

WOW. For a minute there i thought that you were Leeravitz, Joe
_________________
"You're talking last ditch, I need top drawer" V
"To be in opposition is not to be a nihilist" CH
"im iver an idiot or a genus" Dekuprince
Perplex City Video


PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:30 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Dorkmaster
Unfictologist


Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 1328
Location: The People's Republic of Dork

My personal opinion (nothing more, of course) is that ARG, at least, should stay away from this. Unless it's a device of the game, I tend to think it's just destructive to the community aspect, rather than constructive. (Why splinter a community, when it does nothing for your story... why alienate players?)

I think many many mediums have a valid reason to advance political agendas, or to be viewed from certain viewpoints, but for our purposes, I tend to think that ARGs should be free of an overarcing "viewpoint" and instead could have characters that have differing views regarding said political climates.

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of politics in general, cuz I've never seen people get along better after disagreeing on politics, so I am likely skewed too far to have a completely objective view, but yeah... that's what I think.
_________________
"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." -William Gibson
"Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it." - PJ O'Rourke
"ACADEMY, n. A modern school where football is taught." - Ambrose Bierce


PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:37 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts]  
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Meta » General META Discussion
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group