Visual Faith

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wax museums and rural life: surrealism and sensationalism (Eco, 12)

The visual may seem more realistic but it cannot replace the event. Yet many times it does. The participation in such glorious recreation is itself a hodgepodge attempt. It is a false hope to reconstruct that which can never be mimicked. The tradeoff is dramatic flare.

Documentaries try to tell the full truth or at least we would hope they are honest. Unlike book adaptations the documentary is accepted as canon. Documentaries are truth tellers. Yet this trust from the narrational voice educating the viewer comes off as authentic. They are teaching, how could they lie? Why would they lie? The power of a documentary is not only in the visual but in the realistic persona. Yet just as a bookie will criticise the cinematic changes so too the knowledgeable can poke holes in the documentary. Documentaries are trusted for their tedious educational nature but such education is not always the whole truth and biases seep through the cracks to promote an agenda.

Documentaries do add the dramatic flare for entertainment. The information must be taken with a grain of salt. The interesting part is that the cinematic ought to be second to the textbook. A book is more honest since it just accumulates data. Yet a visual is by and large false because it requires realistic promotion. A historical figure has more to question as there is no visual footage. At least contemporary problems may have more of a visual exponent that can be easily analysed. A documentary on monkeys and the Roman Empire provide various components. The former can provide real life footage while the latter cannot. The latter is a recreation with actors. The latter is a ploy while the former is genuine photography. The documentary on monkeys may have its agenda and problems. It may promote one sided issues but it is proscribing photography in the moment. One ought to enter the documentary with a secondary source or check other sources after.

Today there is less interest in reading about problems. People would rather view the problem on a big screen. Learning from television rather than from books. The truth of television especially of documentaries becomes the truth of the issue. This is but a falsehood. The directing cast is promising a problem. There may be some unbiased programs but those confronting terrible issues are enlightening through a point. Again whether their agenda is correct or not it is still an agenda. The rate of unbiased material is quite mute. A documentary on factory farming has a goal even if it is correct. A documentary on monkeys may be to educate to fix a problem. Why make a documentary unless there is something underlying the goal. It isn’t about nefarious deception or underhanded means but rather a goal-centred choice. Education is but an agenda driven ideal. The power therefore of the visual is the realistic picture. This is how it is. Subsumed by the photographical portrayal. This image is the problem. The power of the imagery facilitates growth and change.

There is a documentary about the meat industry. People have said that it rationed them to eat. Was this because they saw the horrors or maybe it was the criticism. An array of psychological impressionism that tortured the meat eater. Here is what happens when you eat meat. It is not only the point of view imposed upon the viewer but more so the extra components that seek to “educate” the public. Showing them gruesome images and overpacking with dramatic association. The goal of documentary is not to educate but to overwhelm. They are like a news outlet who provide the unbiased news with images and storylines. Here too the narration is prodded by photos and lecturing. The documentary is but a series of news centric points but at the heart are advocates on social media. The documentary can provide so much but its textbook like narration ought not to be taken seriously. Though even a textbook is biased in many ways. Concerning the revolutionary war an American and British textbook may give different details and omit crucial information. A documentary may be a viewer friendly set but it doesn’t exempt bias.

An interesting trend of documentary-like shows have surged on Netflix from Vikings, Marco Polo and Barbarians. These provide some truth, some source material but many a time insinuate falsities about the culture. These aren’t necessarily intended to take seriously but they embed truth in these shows. So Ragnar wasn’t real but other stuff about the culture is. The deception is that the plot may be wrong but the setting is correct. Whether or not Ragnar successfully raided west and became king of the Danes is debatable even outright wrong (though the real life inspriation may have) nevertheless the viewer rejects the storyline but accepts the surrounding bits. Ragnar may not be real but the viking culture is. They did sacrifice people and they did pillage. They were savages not the Christians. The issue with the visual is its prowess over the setting. The truths relayed to the public take in much of the surroundings even if part of it is questioned. It’s a reaction. A mock up of the past yet has some truth to it. This is the agenda driven farce. Employing a singular narrative veiled behind the plot line. The setting isn’t all true but is fluidly incorporated. 

The viewer knows this cinematic flavour is a recreation. There are no photographs nor videos of the event. They can only be transcribed from historians. From embellished historical facts. Nevertheless, it is a recreation. Yet such history is taken as a fact. When a group of men recreate the civil war for a YouTube video it is clumsy and ignored but when done in front of an audience it is taken seriously. This is what the battle looked like. This community in Jamestown is exactly how it looked nearly half a millennium ago. There is much truth but it can only be ascertained from notes or maybe even oral transmission. Yet the inability to fully see into the past disables the possibility of actualising the truth. What is presented is an aspiring equivalent. It may be the closest we have but it doesn’t make it the correct version. It makes it an admirable imitation. The visual in Jamestown may have its drama though the cinematic creation is evidently in the business of profit rather than non profit education. There is a difference between a historical society and a movie but then again non profits are not always as honest as they ought to be. The goal is to educate a goal a certain way. So again everything is to be taken a grain of salt. 

All is to be cross examined. Still this doesn’t take away from the visual power on the audience. How seeing becomes believing. How could it be wrong. Yet it is really the opposite. Reading is believing. Reading different versions helps document the whole truth. Where one stands on the legitimacy it is for sure at most eighty percent. The visual is an important piece of the puzzle. The visual compels adherence. It compels authentication. Yet this is far from the truth. Do not always trust what you see. Someone is always selling you something that is the name of the game. 

Artificial Reconstruction

By: Jonathan Seidel 

From letters to life size: Wax museums, civil war reenactments and revolutionary battle signs—the battle of realism (Eco, 11)

The goal of recreation is a human response to the old. Writing has always been the barometer for memorialising but never the way of connection. The best way to recall something is for human reenactment. From texts to talk. From words to warrior. 

Human recollection is adorning the old with profound respect. The old is written to recapture that which was. Documenting the events as they pass by. A historical layer of recall and republication. With text, the past will never die. It will remain chained to its marvellous creation. It may be lost but will remain forever. Passed down and educated. Texts are simple and persuasive. They require little talent. Legibility and maybe some poetic charm. Documentation is tedious if not enticed with some embellished licence. It is not lying but illustrating the facts with some flare. Giving a more robust pathos to the historical action. Not just some event but dramatically underscored. Hyping the past with attributes of charismatic sensitivity and elements of nostalgia. The text is great but it is only the start. 

Symbols preceded text but the complexity of events and speech gave rise to writing. Able to convey details in a simplistic manner. A shared tongue for all to understand—though to some degree foreign to those who do not speak the language. Yet shared words across time can help mimic speech with phonetics and syntax. Words replaced the symbol. The symbol didn’t speak while words did. Yet symbols never died. They remained and bore the words some visualisation. The symbol had always acted as a medium between the event. Yet its lack of terminology lacked an explanation. Symbols were but pictures filled with incomprehensible meaning. Only the contemporary society could decode causing a terrible problem for descendants. Words instead salvaged meaning by adapting the prose over time. Even with a new generation the older text need only be refined. There may be some lettering changes but a translation by a descendent could be achieved due to similarities between the two cultures. 

With documentation, symbols were hidden behind words. Just like fiction, the world building was achieved in the reader’s mind. Each would create their own figures in their imagination. Yet the lack of understanding prevented descendants from truly comprehending. What exactly is this tool or building look like? What exactly does this mean? Researchers could find patterns and erect a fascinating possibility. One that the reader may have either never picked up on or had little extensive study to calibrate such a possibility. Documentaries as a perfect modern example act as the visual of the text. Yet not the whole text. The text only provides certain aspects. The perspective of the writer. Authors at times do not document every angle or add some embellishment for some serious engagement. Therefore it is important for the documentary to fill in the gaps. If the documentary concerns the life of a certain individual all documentation must be analysed and then cross examined with other details. The honesty surrounding the a documentary is extensive research to provide the accurate portrayal of the event. What would they be wearing, where would they be stationed and who else would be pictured.

The first example illustration was art. Art painted and sculpted replicas of the satires administered. Whether it be horned Moses or Jesus’ last supper. The illustration follows the artist’s intent. Just as documentation has its bias so does artwork. There is a cultivation of a perspective but even more so with art is the power of the visual. One may read of horned Moses or even hear a lecture of it but seeing it, is a whole other level. It imprints the image into the mind. This must be the case as it is to be canvassed. This is not some artist’s idea but a realistic portrayal of the event. If other art of portraits is the petition to engrave history so too the artist is a historian. Just as an author can write Napoleon was six feet so too an artist can depict Napoleon as six feet. The artist as well as the author have a duty to parlay history but doing so doesn’t mean it is accurate. Nevertheless, the presentation of the visual is more profound. Seeing a painting is the model day camera. It is the event as best copied possible. 

Artworks of events, especially those committed by later artists or inexperienced, is the modern documentary. Unlike a camera which captures the person as they are (this can even be altered) the artist of a past event uses his knowledge like Michelangelo’s Moses. The glamorous art in the Sistine Chapel was marked by understanding of text interpretation. Using one’s own imagination with available data furthers this theme. The fact that Jesus was drawn as a European is dually a fossilised imagination centred on portraying an idea. The embellishment whether biased or not. It may be that none of the texts depict his skin tone nor his height. Yet knowing he was born of Middle Eastern descent doesn’t make him white or black. He probably looked like an Arab or a Sephardi Jew. The painting of the Last Supper fulfilled the textual quota but not the colourful atmosphere. A painting can be embellished whether intentionally or incidentally. Still, this visual sticks with the seeker. Jesus was of this skin complexion since that is how he is drawn despite that it is most probably incorrect.

The visual provides the imagery. Not only is it persuasively powerful but it is conceptually powerful. How to relive the old is through action. A documentary on the revolutionary war provides the action as it played out. Portraying the text in a live action flick. Taking the Harry Potter book and putting it on the big screen. Unlike book to movie formulations, the diary to documentary is considerably more complex. Hitting all the angles. Visual effects are greatly calculated and condensed. The goal of the documentary is to educate not to just enjoy. It is not to bombard the viewer with cool CGI but rather present the narrative. Different goals with different narration. Yet the visual is still on a screen. The viewer stands far from the action. He is watching the action unfold in front of him. Yet he is only a bystander taking in the sights as if he were looking at photographs. He is passive, sitting back and enjoying the scenery. The recreation as his imagination visualises opposite him.

This is not to say that documentaries cannot be biased. They are visual recreations of the past and therefore are cultivated by actors not actual persons. Yet unlike the Netflix dramas, documentaries supposedly hold to a code. Yet biases are present in any time of historical paradigm. The place of the documentary is to highlight the textual material and relive in. To take Homer's Troy and throw Brad Pitt in it (though not a documentary in its own right) is to add some dramatic flare for viewer engagement. While being mostly right doesn't make it all right. The issue with documentaries is that for the ignorant viewer the a priori trust in the presentation is a false hope. At least Michelangelo presented it as he thought. Documentaries are not for the artist but for the viewership. Therefore there needs to be a profit made as well as an agenda imposed. Still the visual impact regards the truth seen rather than read. The documentary not only has its trust but it also has its charm. It is something to be weary even though it looks all too real.   

Documentaries provide the restarted visual but are fictional. They are on a screen. Instead, civil war reenactments or colonial mock up areas. The participants dress up and arrange the lifestyle like they did in those eras. Head to Jamestown to see the character of a colonist back in the premodern era. Their appearance and their methods. Yet these colonial areas are found on the edge of one’s town. Sometimes the city does so for the sake of memory. An interesting outlet for a reminder despite the Suburban disposition. Southerners reflect on the Civl War with all the garb and weapons to truly grasp the event. Reenactments isn’t always for the viewer whether in person or on social media. The enjoyment by the participant in reviewing history is to partake in a memorial aspect. No longer a viewer but an engaged element. Carrying a fake gun dressed in blue with long stockings to imitate the founders. The goal is not always the viewer but the participant. Yet for the viewer its lack of cinematic joy. Its realistic vibe hinges on the awkward unprofessional mark. Lacking proper choreography means natural. The visual feels different. It feels made up but it also feels honest.

No longer does text remain simple script. The visual has become more realistic with its profound emphasis on picture. The ability to display an illustration with such dexterity. To be profoundly inspired by the actions happening in the moment. What occurred centuries prior to be displayed to the viewer with such esteem. Bringing the text to life.

Quest For Meaning

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/386183736799221512/

By: Jonathan Seidel

Must interpret: Zizeks’s cinematic deductions on the plain realistic screen (Sontag, 11)

Zizek is a certified cinephile. His documentaries as well as his books are filled with expositions of movies. Is Zizek reading way too much into movies? Should film be interpreted or enjoyed? 

ZIzek’s Parallax View is a running commentary of cinematic classics. From Star Wars to The Graduate. Classics for sure but it is questionable whether they were intended to have philosophical deductions so deeply layered with symbolic characteristics. Maybe Zizek is reading too much into movies. Just as countless critics have interpreted Kafka’s Castle in their own discourses. Is it a religious political or ethical circus? Did Kafka write Metamorphosis for kicks or was he deriding the shallow morality of man?  Was Dostoevsky writing fiction or religious themes? The role of the the reader is to interpret the author’s intent but there is a disconnect. He is reading the author’s intent through his writing. A text with punctuation to guide emotion. Only estimating the authorial intent. The reader is a clumsy guesser. He shouts the three numbers but without any context or framing. Just assuming what the author would potentially mean. He cannot visualise the author nor ask him his inquires. He assumes and runs with it.   

Did Lucas insist on blue and red lightsabers to distinguish between the good and bad guys? Did Lucas intend for the Jedi to be a little more accountable for their failures? To some extent only Lucas knows. Does that matter? Not really. Any reader can assume the intent based on his interpretation. It is a free country. Are his deductions false? Maybe but maybe not. Others may argue with him pointing out his fallacies but maybe the director just screwed up or blundered in according the pattern. Without verification from the director the question remains uncertain. People shout and shout over what a certain author meant. Nietzsche wrote this and therefore meant this but what about this passage and this story passed down from his youth that entertains this path. Nietzsche can’t answer so it is just the loudest voice wins. The most convincing voice momentary is victorious but since there is no verification to end the war the battle will restart with a later challenge. Criticising and complimenting is a part of realising the truth but it can never be realised if the artist is absent to confirm.

It is a waste? No. The creative deduction of a text or a scene empowers the self. They noticed a clue of the genius. To the deducer the book or the film is art and art is not a hodgepodge of colours thrown on a sheet of paper (though postmodern art has received this criticism—yet even in its inadequacy it is an expression of creativity even if that creativity seems bland rather than bold). Scanning a portrait at a museum will yield one of two results marvelling at the sketches and congruent lines while another passes enjoys the flash of colours mashed on a 12x14 piece of paper. Appreciation for art depends on its value to the looker. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Beyond appreciation is its symbolism. A connoisseur in his expert opinion deduces a plausibility. Drawing on the style and theme. Yet his final conclusion is far from the truth. It is what he assumes based on the proof he has exposed. Yet it is the variables that he has focused upon. A layman may deduce differently. His knowledge inferior to the expert yet his ignorance may yield better results unbiased by frequency or awards.

Art may be drawn for aesthetic purposes. For the sheer beauty of the colours combined in a tremendous landscape or for pleasure. Bored one day picked up a brush and painted. What came out may have had subconscious motifs but no conscious meaning implored. Viewers rush to apply meaning. The best is after their death. No ability to respond or critique the nonsense spewed by reviewers. Silence from beyond the grave and yet arguments rage. The unknown makes it that much more ironic. Maybe Kafka liked castles. Maybe Lucas liked space cowboys. Not everything means something above. It is not a natural truth. It is a natural aspiration. The only truth is that people see meaning in that which possibly has no meaning. There is no way it could be meaningless. Absent meaning it is worthless. But it simply isn’t. It doesn’t need some philosophical or self-help guidance to inspire. Its creation alone is sufficient. The esoteric hope is but a novel collapse of intellectual absurdism. Some things do not make sense. They do fit the pattern. Maybe the author was having an off day maybe he misspelled. 

The sheer arrogance is but a symptom of human editing skill. Pride is but a stubborn asset. The mind cultivates a novel pattern. This must be correct. The brain has figured it out. The enlightenment firing neurones as dopamine fills the neurological sanctuary. A sacred dogma unveiled in the detective mind. Eureka he screams smiling ear to ear. Solving the unsolvable forty year murder mystery. A hot shot first day on the job. Not realising that he is the fifteenth person to entertain this idea. Others weren’t privileged to publish their ideas in recent centuries with the luxury of the internet age to salvage their notebooks. The idea is creative but usually not original. It is possible but also quite improbable with massive amount of people on earth. The amount of people who have pondered the same piece of art or the same text. Mathematically it is quite foreign but hey give it a shot. Who cares. Don’t be shy publish and take credit for your brilliance. A gift for a keen eye and modern platforms. 

A subject art but a formidable one. A little overzealous but intriguing. Acknowledging the depth of the content. Aroused by the beauty even if it is a personalised construction. It is in the eye of the beholder. It is centralised by his focus. Others are not captivated by its brilliance. He shrugs his head as a passerby skims by the age old portrait. Thinking this guy doesn’t get it. How shallow can someone be. He forgets the acquired taste. Not everyone is privy to the artistic majesty that he examines. They are uneducated or unconcerned. It is rather irrelevant. He is imbued with an interest in the complexity of the portrait. The time and expertise explored in the masterpiece. He has found meaning in the unveiling of its colours. The hodgepodge is a canvas of subliminal messages. He is jolly by the excitement of this painting. He assumes the rationale behind this painting. Maybe he is wrong. He has found meaning in this artistic piece. The artist would be pleased that his work has been received even if it is not directly in line with his thinking. He has inspired, he has affected an audience.

Yet ought we be to be careful in our interpretations. Would Springsteen be upset that many have mistaken his Born in the USA as a pro-nationalistic song over the explicit subtitles to the anti-war themes dominating the lyrical jolt? Would Sting be upset that many have accepted his Every Breath You Take as a love song instead of a stalking experience? To some extent it would irritate the artist to know his hard work has been misinterpreted. For his message to be undermined by false messaging. Is it so wrong for the song to take on new meaning? Is that not an inevitable part of human history? Nietzsche would’ve hated Nazis and yet his work was highlighted to their standards. Despite Heidegger’s Nazi affiliation his ideas have carried much weight in the latter half of the twentieth century even by Jews. To interpret is to internalise a message based on the subjective reception. A story is examined from all different angles. It is not a one size fits all. The more esoteric the character the more vague and more open interpretation is. Time shifts the relational element evolves. Art gains meaning as new cultural contexts develop. 

An artist ought to be annoyed when his words are taken out of context yet it is an inevitable part of social development. Yet it is not clear that all art is to be interpreted. While Bruce’s song was a message, was Stings? Was Sting telling others his story to inspire or just to vent? Or maybe he just was playing good music. Bruce’s Born to in the USA follows the anti-war movement of Scarborough Faire and Fortunate Son. Sting seems more in line with Claptons’ Tears in Heaven. What does the artist expect, to just enjoy? The lyrics will be listened and repeated aloud by the audience. Music is not theatrical it is reciprocal. It is less sermonic and more harmonic—at least it has evolved in such a manner. A portrait can’t respond and while it is hanging in a museum visitors marvel at its beauty interpreting as they go along. A novelists’ goal read a century later may go over the reader’s head. Context is bleak beyond the setting by the author. Exoteric fiction does aid to inform the reader of the context even if the reader be a descendent. Then again the esoteric fiction can only be discerned by each and every individual. Patterns may be spotted and insights intuited but there is no doubt without a personal confession the reader is at a disadvantage. 

Yet that is the second part of art. It is the message of the artist to the world as well as the audience’s internalisation. Whether the audience has satisfied the adequate meaning is important to reciprocate the artist’s intent but when it is vague he is to do his best and deduce to his best capability. From there, the value of the art remains even if the artist and audience have divergent opinions on the matter. Both believe it meaningful but in different aspects. The artist may be upset but his work is public. The audience ought to do right by the author but if it be vague or uncertain it has lost all linkage. Though once it has been publicised, it is in the hands of the audience to deduce as they see fit. Authorial intent is critical insofar as the audience is arguing that this is the artist’s intent. When it comes to commentary authorial intent is inseparable. Since the the artist’s philosophy and perspective are the string behind the song. On the other hand a criticism of sorts values the song with little correlation to the artist. It is the words and the meaning derived to inspire rather than the author’s message. In this vein, the message is deciphered as the critic entails. It isn’t to argue that this is the intent of the artist but this is a way of reading it alternatively.

There may be where to distinguish Born and the USA where the artist has ousted the meaning while cinema is left vague, portraits are left vague. Without authorial explanation the intent is left to pondered. In the former case, any meaning outside the artist’s explicit instruction undermines the art on the other hand maybe his subconscious embedded a second narrative. It is still possible to read art in multiplicity even upon authorial admission. Though if need be they can be excluded. This does not cease the interpreter of vague esoteric art still out there. Whether the author intended as such or failed to disclose the truth behind it. Art is publicised to the audience and the audience internalises. The artist will see his script different than the audience. The viewer is subject to varied phenomena and perceives the plot with more nuance than the artist does. It is in no way to shame or upend the artist’s beauty but it is to offer a viewer’s opportune. The viewer has his own credibility to what he has witnessed. A critic offers his perspective on what he has seen. It may not jive with the artist’s expectations but he has publicised it for review and is entitled to evaluated.

To this end, Zizek’s analysis may be off-putting or wrongheaded. Lucas and Hitchcock may scoff at such attempts. Yet Zizek is applying his philosophical expertise to the plot. His Lacanian view would differ from another’s analytical or Heideggerian postulation. Each character can be examined in light of a certain approach. The divergent diagnosis leads to a varied conclusion. It doesn’t make it right or wrong. It is Zizek’s understanding of the film. It is his interpretation. Yet another may offer a different conclusion. Whatever the truth may be is of little importance. The critic relates to the art from his view. He approaches the film with his preconceived notations. He finds the storyline disturbingly deep. It is no kickback monotone. This is more than sport. This is art. He takes notes. He is inspired. Lucas is a genius, Hitchcock is a philosopher. Who knew. Deeply embedding powerful themes esoterically. Telling a profound plot with essential themes of power and ethics.  

His message from the films enhances his view of the world. It fills his philosophy. Film is not just an enjoyable experience but an educational purpose. While this may be reading too deeply into the text, art is a message from the artist to the public.  Bruce clearly meant to send a message of anti-war to the public. Did Lucas intend on good guy imperfection or bad guy morally grey area? Maybe he adduced the shift when he made the prequels or he felt that way the entire time. What is obvious is not evident. Zizek is not turning Lucas into a philosopher only that his art is deep and purposeful. It need not resemble human society or engender a shift in the world. Orwell’s 1984 seems to be a grim message but that is not true of all novella. Yet it does seem that art does reflect the socio-cultural layout of the times. While every piece may not semantically seem deep, it is truly an esoteric masterpiece. Zizek’s move whether authorial intent or not is to derive beauty from enjoyment. To cultivate meaning in the plain entertainment of the age. 

To find meaning is powerful. It may come off peculiar to others. Just enjoy the film and marvel at the art. Yet the deeper layer exposes something more. The viewer is not a passive actor. He isn’t just to take it, to observe and clap. He is to actively deduce and analyse. He is to see the entertainment as beauty to perpetuate. To follow the artist’s hope to further its beauty. Art is more than a spectacle it is meaningful. It is powerful and overwhelming. Respecting the artist may be to cheer or it may be to analyse.

Virtual Growth

By: Jonathan Seidel

NPCs the Truman show and broken dotted line belonging (biblical wives versus concubines)

RPG’s are an immense joy to play. A fictional world is created and the protagonist follows the hero’s journey. Whether it be to catch every Pokemon or save the world there are important characters that assist along the way. Without them, the protagonist cannot pass to the next stage and the player cannot defeat the game. They are integral to his success

The old Pokemon games come to mind. The big block shaped versions. You start out and need to speak to Professor Oak to get a Pokemon and then pass through different gym leaders to move on to the ensuing stages. There is the whole Team Rocket narrative running alongside. Battling trainers on the side of the road to develop Pokemon to defeat upcoming adversaries. Some of the characters say nothing of importance while others provide gifts and critical information. For much of the game, trainers hog the outskirts of the screen forcing the protagonist into battle over and over again. Yet there are cases where the protagonist needs to approach people whether it be Bill or the captain of the ship. Much of this requires engagement in order to reach the next level. The NPCs are instrumental of moving to the next stage. Talk to Bill to pass through the robbed house to then get to the third gym. Reach the captain to receive cut for the ship to leave and then battle the gym leader. Yet other gifts are unnecessary. The bike guy is a choice to speak to, so is the fisherman who gives you the super rod or the psychic guy. Pokemon does give some latitude to travel and fight but there is an order.  

The NPCs in Pokemon are divided between those who are coherent and those incoherent. While the world is filled with NPCs most don’t do anything. If you walk into a random house they may something bizarre or irregular. They fill up the screen but many are placed for quantity over quality. It is a word of inhabitants, it needs to have people. Especially to realistically portray a scene, there needs to be non-trainers. Yet this obvious failure ignores half the NPCs in the game. Though one is never certain who has something to give and who doesn’t. Sometimes a random NPC will wish to trade a Pokemon that cannot be caught in the game. It is worthwhile to search every house but it is also tiresome especially when their answers are irrelevant. They are a part of the world but not the protagonist’s journey. With exception of the gym leaders who do very little Blue is the only reoccurring character and Giovanni have merit. Giovanni has his journey and Blue is the rival that keeps the protagonist on his toes. Always with the advantage but an obstacle to repeatedly overcome. To win the game he needs to be defeated for the final time. He is a formidable foe and it is his periodic pop-ups that catch the protagonist off guard with only one way forward to win. 

While there are NPCs who roam the world of the game there are also cases of NPCs in one’s party that cannot be used. NPCs who accompany the protagonist throughout the journey. The old man in the original Legend of Zelda comes as a guide through the limitless hairsplitting voyage to defeat Ganon. He is the sole character other than the protagonist. He provides gifts and insight. Such a help in a lonely game. Though in the follow up A Link from the Past NPCs roam and Zelda is far more relevant. The difference in style follows style of gaming whether there are other figures in the universe. For most games, the protagonist is the centre of attention yet other characters are created to assist along the way. It is an homage to the classic tales of the past. Even Link needs the old man. NPCs can be quite annoying if they block your path or offer no assistance. They are coordinated by the developers. They have a code. A function in the game as it reflects the protagonists’s journey. The NPC is a byproduct of the hero’s journey but it is always comedic to find the lost souls in the game. Bringing back Pokemon for hot sec, the trainers that stand stoically ready to catch you as you pass by are integral to making you stronger and giving you money while the random citizens roaming around the city will mutter some nonchalant sentence about the beautiful city they reside in. Those that do not matter have little to say to the protagonist. 

Earthbound’s NPCs were quite enjoyable. Instead of allotting half to do something and the other half to mumble nonsense, the irregular figures recited comedic remarks. Passing from town to town found some enjoyable comments to reflect upon. The developers went all out to value the NPCs. Earthbound is a highly personal adventure. Forcing the protagonist to wander to learn more and advance to the next stage. Instead of boring the protagonist with nonsense jargon, they gave the NPCs a voice. The NPCs are fun to talk to. They’ll teach the protagonist something or they’ll make the player smile. The NPCs were cultivated with purpose despite their numerous quantity. Each house is a gem to enter and each passerby is a worthwhile lad. They have a Mr. T NPC as well as the Blues Bothers. Eager to talk to every NPC to see what witty comment they may have. A world of interest with cute puns and quick laughs. What makes Earthbound so enjoyable is its comedic fluidity. The goal to save the world is so bland and copy written. Cool sounds like fun. Meeting people and learning new things as the game goes along only furthers the joy. World building is difficult but the creators did an incredible job of providing meaning to each figure to relate and crack a smile. Isn’t that what gaming is about?           

Fun NPCs are not the same as complex NPCs. Final Fantasy enjoyed portraying these characters with personality and history. They weren’t just players to provide information or gifts but had backstories and lessons. Just like in Earthbound they could teach but they were also able to engage the emotional part of the player. Earthbound is a comedic run while Final Fantasy has some dire moments that can hurl the player into brief duress. The depth of these characters offers new perspectives and new engagement. They are players to assist and follow. They rely on the protagonist to emerge victorious and continue forward. It is no longer solely the protagonist’s journey but there are NPCs who are relying on him. They are still on the sidelines but they are cheering. They are not vending machines or information booths. They are figures with genuine struggles. New games have furthered the emotional link with more realistic portrayals of these characters. Instead of the pixel layered illustration the technology used now overlays fictional but yet relatable characters. While still stuck in the early 2000s of gaming, there is much to glean from commercials and friends. 

NPCs do not really see the light of day or gain independence or become real in their own right (again may not have played enough games stuck to the Super Nintendo). Though it is possible with the newer games NPCs play a bigger and a more realistic role. With advanced technology namely AI, NPC development can become more transparent and realistic. With Al controlling NPCs the standard fossilisation deteriorates. NPCs react to the protagonist. As the protagonist has become more entrenched in the screen with more latitude so has AI. The realism meets not so much in the appearance but in the responsiveness. The NPCs seem normal as they reflect the actions of the protagonist. It is all relative to the subjective player. The adaptation not the AI is unique to each player.  The game can be realistic but the virtual will continue to be superficial as long as the world is systematically uniform. The perfected NPC that acts according to the player’s answers and direction. No longer are NPCs objects but subjects in the game. The AI revolution doesn’t just mimic personality it adds life-force. Past NPCs with depth are a part of the genome. Each player interacts with them in the same way. Depending on the answer there may be a few options but it is uniform. The code is an objectifier. With AI the protagonist is the same for each player but the player is different. His style and personality are encoded in the game. The AI picks up on each tell and formulates responses respectively.

The AI NPC is a digital friend. A person on the other end. While AI is in its infancy sounding robotic at times it is developing further. The aspiration of AI is to resemble human behaviour. Yet a monotone response would derail the connection. The monotone response solidifies the break between the real and virtual world. Then again the fact that one is holding a controller on a game console may also reflect that. When gaming uses headsets or body suits to place the individual in the game or at least feel more involved there will always be that disconnect. Still, there are seemingly virtual elements in texting and chat boxes for multiplayer games. The player knows that other players are real and knows the text recipient is real but there is no speech just a robotic message lacking facial expression, lacking emotion. Irrespective of the realism in games, the virtual remains separate. It may only be a matter of time before VR becomes normative and the advanced sensory perceptions are aligned with human reality. It may take some time but AI’s NPC model is a first step in relating on an individual level to the player. The protagonist is locked into a unique journey that depends on the player. The player has become the object of the game as the AI scans his depth. The roles have been reversed and the player is the object of concentration. The player enjoys his journey unaware that each move is calculated and responded to according to his needs.

Humanising NPCs is a step into bringing players into the virtual world. Investing not just as a player but as a person. There are multiplayer games to play with other players but this is the code following single player runs. Instead of playing Super Smash Bros with friends you are playing a solo campaign with the AI following your every move. It is as if you are playing with someone else. Someone else is lurking in the shadows but cannot be seen. Walking through a haunted house and see toys lying on the shelves only for them to come to life and engage (for good or for bad). The player assumes NPCs are gift-givers but they then ask philosophical questions. Are discussing their extension crisis. As if Andy entered his room and Woody walked up to him and began lecturing him. Andy treats his toys as toys. They are objects to enjoy. He is the subject and they the object. He chooses what they do and how they move. He puppeteers them and they do not fret. They speak highly of their position in Andy’s kingdom but also enjoy their own freedom when he is away. When Andy leaves they regain their autonomy and do what they like. They speak of Andy as an object of their joy. There is never an interaction between Andy and Woody. Andy never learns that Woody speaks. It would freak him out but Woody is content with the secret and praise. The AI operates similarly as the object of the player but really the NPC is the autonomic being with the player entering their narrative. 

Free Guy plays on the AI chain. Guy breaks free of his programming and becomes an in game character who exists according to the player. If he dies then he is revived in the last location. He can gain the ability to be a real player. He is an NPC because he is independent of the player controller but he is a protagonist able to get coins and prizes when he wears the goggles taken from the bank robbers. Since it isn’t virtual reality, it is assumed that protagonists wear special goggles for the code to distinguish PCs from NPCs. What is interesting is how Guy becomes sentient. Millie’s avatar sings a song that messes with his programming. His breaching from the matrix to ponder the existential questions of the universe is a song. The song doesn’t transform but gets his gears turning. The AI development is a process. Guy must think for himself and decide his own path. It is later revealed that Guy’s code is unique as Keys specifically wrote it for her. It is then the special programming that awakes his consciousness from the slumber of a matrix riddled determination. Since Keys and Millie’s goal was AI observational development self-awareness was a goal from the get-go. Guy’s sentience raises questions about the ethics in AI. If they erased Guy at the end would that be murder? He is a program but a living program. Watching Guy grow embraces the audience’s sympathies for his survival. The audience screams no to his erasure. He may be a program but he seems to be alive. 

The more realistic AI becomes the more connective NPCs become. Guy is not Truman. Guy cannot serve beyond the server. He is entrenched in the video game. As long as the video game is running he can live but beyond he is lost. The server must continue. While man can only breathe with oxygen he is not in a glass seal unable to survive outside. The apocalyptic age is not upon us—yet. Guy is forever trapped to the server as fish are to the sea. Yet the sea won’t die like the server. Guy is a sentient NPC. He has little fortitude beyond the game realm. He was alive within the new observational hold. A breeding game for AI sentience. It is still lacking in character. He can experience anything in the game as long as it is encoded. He can learn all that resides within the features. He is limited but he is aware of the limitation. He recognises the futility of his life but cannot imagine the “real world”. The sublime other that is only pondered. Guy may be respected but he still perceived as a kid or a pet. He is sentient but he needs guidance from others to ensure his survival. The entire server depends on the players access and engagement. Within the game Guy can learn more, he resides beyond the scope. Guy differs from evolutionary AI which relates to the players. Guy is independent on his own path while the other NPCs rich in their knowledge are dependable on the protagonist playing. Guy becomes a protagonist while other AI may adduce otherness and complexity but remain committed to their craft. 

Unravelling AI in the gaming sphere is dependent or independent of the player. Guy lives under the first model. Yet much is in favour of the latter. Players wish to be in control and do not need NPCs messing with their plans. NPCs are there for assistance and for depth not to become protagonists themselves. The goal of objectifying the player may mess with the player’s primary goals but it is also an engaging format where the protagonist is still the main story. Guy defies and attempts to turn the game on its head. AI brings more depth but it also breaks the routine of NPC purpose. They are virtual they may as well stay that way. The game is a game not to replace real life. The virtual world is a hobby to follow the hero’s journey. To have little connections and move on. Abed’s comfort in the video game marshals a simple understanding of code that relates to the players. Take the simple code and add more reflection. It isn’t about self-awareness but relatability. AI won’t replace the real with the virtual but it does mitigate the gaming goal.