I apologize for not replying sooner--I don't want this thread to got he way of the dodo...yet.
There's a big problem with this picture, though. ...To a certain fidelity, both analog and digital are indistinguishable. ...SNIP
It was probably a poor analogy. What I was trying to get at is that while digital may be a more accurate representation in terms of hearing range, there is something that "seeps through" with analog perhaps because it is less exact.
I may take exception to the claim that the rise in popularity of MMORPGs diminishes fantasy creativity (and creativity in general). My understanding is that WoW's popularity is mostly based on people who do not "consume" other fantasy products. In other words, most of the people playing WoW do not choose it over D&D as they wouldn't have played D&D anyways. This is similar to the popularity of LotR not necessarily being related to the popularity of fantasy literature in general. (Anecdotally, the majority of Wow players I know enjoy very little else in "fantasy" land.)
True, good point. I guess this is why I shouldn't be upset when people like Harry Potter and think it is "good fantasy."
Given these (possibly flawed) generalities, I claim that fantasy creativity is at least at the same level but the potential consumers of fantasy has greatly increased in number. And by potential, I mean people who watched Harry Potter and LotR and liked it or played Wow and liked it.
Again, this is a good point. The problem being, though, that because there is such a large consumer base, the money is also bigger--so the market becomes more and more dictated by finances, which is why, I think, we see so many more re-makes than new ideas in the larger scifi/fantasy market. But again, it might be as you say that even that isn't truly the case, just the popular remakes outshine and even obscure the original material coming out. But where is that original material? Whether or not
Avatar will be good, I applaud James Cameron for trying something new.
Look at Wizards of the Coast, where the first three settings are the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun. What about a new setting and not just another kitchen sink one, but something thematically innovative and unique? We can hope for 2011, but I'm kind of doubtful. But it is a tricky business, because we might ask the question of how should WotC "reinvent the wheel" with 4th edition. Do you just go through all the hundred or so hardcover books for 3.x and basically re-arrange them and 4thedify them? Or do you try something different? Do we really need a 4th edition of Frostburn? Probably not. But we do need the monster books, and I suppose many need the "Power" books, although with D&D Insider they are becoming rather superfluous. But I'm getting a bit off topic; maybe a new thread on this...
Economically, this is good for the creators of fantasy material as they have a larger potential audience and a larger repertoire of mediums to work with. For example, if you stopped working on D&D 20 years ago, your only option to use your experience was to write fantasy novels or go work on something that was much less popular than D&D, but still table top gaming. Now, if you stopped working on D&D, you have more options (e.g., Dave Noonan works for a software developer, S. K. Reynolds worked for software developers and CCG companies, Monte Cook's running Dungeonaday.com, etc.).
Yes, as long as these new options aren't "creative down-grades." A lot of novelists, for instance, make a living as "professional writers" by writing novelizations, Star Trek or RPG novels. My guess is that the vast majority would rather be coming up with their own material. I suppose it is a weeding out process.
Finally, most of what has been claimed in this thread may be the result of differences in generations. I've been meaning to read Howe and Strauss's Millennials Rising, but I have read Twenge's Generation Me. The usual things are mentioned (shorter attention spans, bigger desire for success but less likely to work hard for it, narcissism). I don't, however, recall diminishing creativity as one of the hallmarks of the new generation.
Yes, the generational thing is huge. As for your last comment, I think it depends upon what we mean by "creativity." I have noticed in conversations I've had about this and related topic both in cyber and meatspace, many equate creativity with such things as processing speed, problem-solving, and other more computative/left-brain aspects of thinking. I'm using it more in terms of aesthetics, imagination, and right-brain thinking. This is where I see MMOs and other video games as good for the left-brain in that they stimulate and even develop the ability to react and respond to certain situations, but they--at the very least--neglect the right-brain, image-making and what Jung called the "collective unconscious" aspects of human consciousness.
Merc, this is one of the more interesting threads I've read here in awhile.
When I get back from up north I'd like to take a whirl at it. Lots of people have some interesting ideas and as a matter of fact I've been working on a series of experiments, tangentially related to this subject, for the past couple of months. But those experiments really deal with different methods of human control over our own experiential and perceptual modes. But it all reminded me of this.
I'd love to hear more about this.
You've got a really good point here. But within the context of Imaginary World versus Virtual World there is no reason that a form of portable, compact technology, capable of augmenting or modifying human sensory capabilities (say to mimic animal senses) cannot be developed to assist with both Virtual systems (fixed, preprogrammed systems) and with Imaginary systems (say to enhance ad hoc, mind and imagination based RPG play and experience).
So although such a technologically based system might seem naturally suited or coupled to Artificial Virtual Worlds (it might automatically be assumed artificial sensory enhancement systems are best suited to Virtual architectures, that isn't necessarily really the case), there is also no need to think such a system would be incompatible with Imaginary Enterprises. In other words the ideas and ideals behind the system don't necessarily limit application to one type of endeavor. Such technologies could have equally beneficial, though slightly different, applications in different realms of experimental modes.
I'm not arguing with you, so much as pointing out that the applications are not necessarily limited, though they might necessarily need to assume different interfacing forms.
Very interesting stuff here. The concern that arises for me is that even if we come up with technologies that enhance "Imaginary Enterprises," how will they enhance our own inner capacities to create said enterprises? An analogy would be if we could come up with a pill that took away a smoker's interest in smoking; great, they won't smoke anymore--at least for the time being--but it creates a reliance on something external (a drug, most likely), and it doesn't build the correlative capacity required to quit smoking, namely willpower.
A perhaps more accurate or appropriate analogy would be the use of psychedelics to stimulate visionary experience and/or imaginative experience. In the right context, fine. But what about the artist who can only create with a joint in hand? Or the shaman who relies on psilocybin or peyote to do "soul healings"?
This goes into the whole issue of transhumanism and my belief that in the future we will see a real split in humanity, those that have developed with and through technology, and those that have developed inner, even mystical, capacities. I have no doubt that the latter will be far fewer than the former, but we are already seeing this occuring.
Respectfully, no. The great postmodern trump card is: Don't confuse "I don't like it" with "it isn't good art". I'm saying something entirely different. I am not talking about the good/bad quality judgment, which has to do with how well the piece communicates to the audience. I am talking about the impact the artist has on how the piece turns out.
To wit - I am not a skilled photographer. I have a crappy old digital camera, that gives me few options in taking my picture. I can take a picture of an object or scene, and a real photographic artist can take a picture of the same scene, and these two things will be entirely different shots. The photographer will be clearly present in his work, while my work can be reproduced by a monkey trained to push a button.
The artist can be very present in a piece, and the piece can still be bad (meaning it communicates little to the audience).
OK, fair enough--and very true. But photography and painting (or virtual and imaginary) are two very different mediums, and I think they can vary in terms of how conducive they are to allowing the artist to enter into the work. The painter is actively engaged in creating the medium by the very act of the brush strokes, whereas the photographer's work is more about adjusting and working with a more pre-given medium. This isn't a judgment for or against photography, just a matter of making meaningful distinctions. As I believe you said or implied, a given photographer can be much more of an artist than a given painter; but my point is that this directly relates to the degree to which they are simulative vs. imaginative, and that the mediums have some impact on this.
It's also worth pointing out that psychological elements have a certain "degree of resolution," as well. Our ability to recognize something as familiar depends on our cognitive schema. The number of schema we can recognize is not infinite (although it's staggeringly large). For instance, our ability to respond to imaginary characters depends on our ability to recognize them as human-like. Our ability to understand, say, an elf is initially based on our ability to recognize it as human-like. As we become more familiar with elves, we develop additional schema for elves based on Tolkien, Forgotten Realms, Keebler, Harry Potter, etc.
Yup, which is why "vanilla fantasy" is more popular than "anything goes." Being more of a humanities guy, I see this less through the lens of neuroscience than that of mythology and psychology. What you are saying points to the reality of archetypes, in my opinion, that there are certain qualities--or gestalts of qualities--that deeply resonate without our consciousness. Why elves and dwarves? Why not kridnors and xyguts? Why orcs and dragons? Why not otyughs and modrons? Well, otyughs and modrons are kind of fun, but they are less archetypally resonant (god, I hope that doesn't sound pretentious!).
Now whether archetypes are simply a kind of psychological storehouse of mytho-historical imagery, or whether they represent universal patterns is less important than the actuality of their "energy signatures," so to speak. In other words, the hermeneutics are less important (although still important) than the phenomenology.
