Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
We use interfaces to disconnect from the situation around us, from the persistent experience of the outside world, from our neighbors. It is this ability of interfaces to legitimize “absence” that is usually overlooked in their analysis, as the emphasis is on concentration, management, and control. In reality, interfaces are not so much pragmatic and utilitarian as experimental and perverse. In this article, the concept of ontological styles is introduced, and using the example of computer games, it shows how interfaces work with such ontological styles as yawning, drift, and ripple. Interfaces that define the conditions of presence in digital reality are usually thought of based on a bodily schema and possible behavioral scenarios; this article attempts to think of interfaces based on moments of “not-Self”, (not)possible worlds and alternative ways of existence in them.
References
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831. https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
Boothroyd, D. (2009). Touch, Time and Technics: Levinas and the Ethics of Haptic Communications. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(2–3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409103123
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring Narrative Engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259
Chun, W. H. K. (2005). On Software, or the Persistence of Visual Knowledge. Grey Room, 18, 26–51. https://doi.org/10.1162/1526381043320741
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (1992). The Image of Objectivity. Representations, 40, 81–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928741
Elo, M. (2012). Digital finger: Beyond phenomenological figures of touch. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 4(1), 14982. https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v4i0.14982
Erickson, T. (1990). Working with Interface Metaphors. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The Art of Human Computer Interface Design (pp. 65–73). Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2162-3_13
Fizek, S. (2018). Automation of play: Theorizing self-playing games and post-human ludic agents. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 10(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.10.3.203_1
Foucault, M. (2005). Insane: A course of lectures given at the Collège de France during the academic year 1974-1975. Наука. (In Russian).
Kolesnikova, D. A. (2019). Bauhaus-effect. From design utopia to interface culture. Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies, 1(4), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.24411/2658-7734-2019-10036
Latypova, A. R. (2020). Between Mutation and Glitch: Digital Evolution of Media. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 57(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057228 (In Russian).
Lenkevich, A. S. (2021). “Are You in Your Body?!”. The Study of Biopolitical Interface Design. Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies, 3(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.46539/gmd.v3i2.160 (In Russian).
Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914
Parsons, T. (2009). Thinking: Objects: Contemporary approaches to product design. AVA Publishing SA. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350088856
Piasentier, M. (2024). The anthropological machine and its reversal. Angelaki, 29(5), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2024.2405301
Schütz, A. (2003). On multiple realities. Russian Sociological Review, 3(2), 4–34. (In Russian).
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.