Naiara- Queer games and algorithm messiness
In what ways is McClure’s use of algorithms different from Noble’s discussion of how algorithms are used in problematic ways? (Naiara)
McLure’s approach to algorithms opposes to the mainstream research strain found in DH scholarship, represented by Noble. Whereas scholars like Noble focus on algorithm bias in search engines, and how to correct them, McLure’s work embraces all the wrongness in algorithmic representations.
McLure is a scholar, visual artist and game creator. Her game “Become an Artist in 10 seconds” invites the player to scramble computer graphics to create a new piece of art, and her interest in algorithms is aesthetic. She looks at how computer bugs look like on the screen and create unexpected results. Her critical engagement with algorithms focuses on finding beauty and meaning in something used in the wrong way or in messiness.
She also explores a discussion that connects queerness to messiness, as in queerness creating a fissure and failure to fit into neoliberal social standards, and celebrates messiness as beautiful and valuable. “In this way, McClure pushes queer digital humanities thinking beyond acknowledging the value of messiness and toward messiness as its own goal. ‘Messing something up,’ as opposed to cleaning it up (as in the case of cleaning up data), becomes the end product of making meaning.” (431)
Therefore, her work differs from Noble by focusing on aesthetics, rather than written discourse, and in celebrating – giving a step further than accepting – algorithms’ errors and messiness instead of fixing them. Noble’s work, as we previously discussed in class, fights stereotypical violent and biased results that appear in search engine autosuggestions and questions the alleged objectivity of algorithms, that he sees as a code language formulated by a non-diverse community of computer scientists.
By focusing on the celebration of messiness and not on correction, McLure is in no way supporting problematic representations generated by algorithms. On the contrary, her approach highlights the existence of failure and bugs but with a different goal – to question figurative representation in games that do not include queer identities. In her experience as a queer person, she hasn’t feel comfortable with the identity options offered by games. So abstraction offers an escape from the discomfort. In addition, it challenges the notions of inclusion and diversity in digital humanities.
Question
McLure celebrates not only messiness, but accidents generated by the use of algorithms. How does attention to accidents can enhance the questions posed by scholars like Noble who focus on search engines? What kind of events are classified by search engines as accidents or mistakes and what it takes for them to acknowledge such events as such?
McLure’s approach to algorithms opposes to the mainstream research strain found in DH scholarship, represented by Noble. Whereas scholars like Noble focus on algorithm bias in search engines, and how to correct them, McLure’s work embraces all the wrongness in algorithmic representations.
McLure is a scholar, visual artist and game creator. Her game “Become an Artist in 10 seconds” invites the player to scramble computer graphics to create a new piece of art, and her interest in algorithms is aesthetic. She looks at how computer bugs look like on the screen and create unexpected results. Her critical engagement with algorithms focuses on finding beauty and meaning in something used in the wrong way or in messiness.
She also explores a discussion that connects queerness to messiness, as in queerness creating a fissure and failure to fit into neoliberal social standards, and celebrates messiness as beautiful and valuable. “In this way, McClure pushes queer digital humanities thinking beyond acknowledging the value of messiness and toward messiness as its own goal. ‘Messing something up,’ as opposed to cleaning it up (as in the case of cleaning up data), becomes the end product of making meaning.” (431)
Therefore, her work differs from Noble by focusing on aesthetics, rather than written discourse, and in celebrating – giving a step further than accepting – algorithms’ errors and messiness instead of fixing them. Noble’s work, as we previously discussed in class, fights stereotypical violent and biased results that appear in search engine autosuggestions and questions the alleged objectivity of algorithms, that he sees as a code language formulated by a non-diverse community of computer scientists.
By focusing on the celebration of messiness and not on correction, McLure is in no way supporting problematic representations generated by algorithms. On the contrary, her approach highlights the existence of failure and bugs but with a different goal – to question figurative representation in games that do not include queer identities. In her experience as a queer person, she hasn’t feel comfortable with the identity options offered by games. So abstraction offers an escape from the discomfort. In addition, it challenges the notions of inclusion and diversity in digital humanities.
Question
McLure celebrates not only messiness, but accidents generated by the use of algorithms. How does attention to accidents can enhance the questions posed by scholars like Noble who focus on search engines? What kind of events are classified by search engines as accidents or mistakes and what it takes for them to acknowledge such events as such?
Comments
Post a Comment