In class, we analyzed the World Game from a number of theoretical perspectives, but we didn't talk about Deleuze and Guattari. In your blog post, discuss the Dymaxion Map from the point-of-view of Deleuze and Guattari's text. Organize your response into two paragraphs: in the first paragraph, consider the following questions:
* Is Fuller's mapping of game-space "smooth" or "striated"?
* Is the World Game more akin to Go (a war game) or Chess (a game of the state)?
In your second paragraph, give a critique of Fuller's Map. Is the Map an appropriate game-board for the World Game? Why or why not? Keep in mind Deleuze and Guattari's categorization of game-spaces (war games are played in smooth space, games of state in striated spaces). Could the map be redesigned to make it more useful?
Remember, proofread your writing before posting. Your response should be between 300-500 words (include a word count at the end of your post).
To help you out, I've included below a useful summary of Deleuze and Guattari's concept of smooth vs. striated space (an excerpt from this article):
Deleuze and space: The smooth and the striated |
| If we are to grasp Deleuze’s concepts of space, a few words should be said about his ‘political anthropology’, which is intended to replace Karl Marx’ political economy and historical dialectics as an analysis and guide in today’s political struggle. In his account of the historical process, Deleuze introduces an agent called ‘the nomad’, unknown to Marxism, who runs counter to ‘the State’ in the sense that the nomad is aggressively creative, while the State plays the more passive role of consolidator: the State thrives by capturing nomadic innovations and transforming them to fit its own needs, precisely in order to consolidate a certain state of affairs. On the other hand, every consolidated state induces renewed nomadic aggression and inventions that the State must absorb and adapt to its consolidating tissue, which, thus enriched, opens up paths for amplified nomadic action, and so on. In accordance with his philosophical style, Deleuze does not come up with a definition of the nomad, but puts the word into play in different contexts, and such that it never acquires a definite meaning, but rather is intended to serve as a conceptual nomad: an agent in unfinished philosophical, political, artistic and other business. This is not to say that the word is reduced to a metaphor or some other trope; the baffling thing is that the historical and anthropological nomads who used to roam the steppes and deserts, warring against the surrounding States, are indeed subsumed under the concept of the nomad at the same level as other nomads introduced along the way, including ‘mad’ physical particles, viruses and rats as well as craftsmen and engineers, and minorities involved in actions against the State. When the nomad/State opposition is applied to space, the basic principle is that nomad space is ‘smooth’ and heterogeneous, while State space is ‘striated’ and homogeneous. Deleuze illustrates these concepts with an example from technology: woven fabric is striated, that is, with the threads of warp and woof; felt is smooth, as it consists of entangled fibres; it is no accident, Deleuze comments, that the Mongolian nomads excel in using felt for their tents, clothing and even armoury. As a matter of fact, the very spaces inhabited by nomads – steppes and deserts – are smooth, and the same is true of the ice desert inhabited by Eskimos, and of the sea roamed by seafaring peoples. In these spaces orientations, landmarks and linkages are in continuous variation, Deleuze observes, and goes on: “there is no line separating earth and sky; there is no intermediate distance, no perspective or contour; visibility is limited; and yet there is an extraordinarily fine topology that relies not on points or objects, but rather on haecceities, on sets of relations (winds, undulations of snow or sand, the song of the sand, the creaking of the ice, the tactile qualities of both).” In contrast to this fluid state, the spaces inhabited by sedentary peoples – which are State spaces – are striated with walls, enclosures and roads that exhibit constancy of orientation and metric regularity. |
I believe that the Dymaxion Map designed by Buckminster Fuller presents the world using Deleuze’s concept of ‘smooth space.’ In Fuller’s adaptation of the globe, there is no longer an “up” or “down”, no single way to view the earth. This undefined orientation transforms the earth into a space holding similar disorienting qualities shared by nomadic spaces like the desert or open sea. Deleuze describes nomads living in spaces where “there is no line separating earth and sky; there is no intermediate distance, no perspective or contour; visibility is limited; and yet there is an extraordinarily fine topology that relies not on points or objects, but rather on haecceities, on sets of relations.” In Fuller’s world map, the continents are equal in value, and exist only in relation to one another on the wall. “Smooth” space enables Fuller to reject traditional maps where certain landmasses hold greater visual power depending on their placement. In Fullers map, all seven continents are presented as equals despite their differences in wealth or power.
ReplyDeleteThe World Game acts in ways similar to the game of Go. Guittari writes of the properties of each game piece, “ Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situation, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop…. Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units and have only an anonymous collective, or third person function”…. (Later in the text)...”Go is a war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy.” The world game is a game of strategy, and of equality between members of the group. Any player could come up with an idea that could take down the entire game and solve the world problem. Unlike chess, each player does not have a single role- the play relies on creative free flowing thought.
Restricting the roles of the players would transform the game to be one more like chess, yet it would halt the creative problem solving that makes the game what it is.
word count: 355
Fuller’s Dymaxion World Map is an unfolded icosahedron. The icosahedron, as demonstrated on the old Windows™ screensaver, can be inflated into a globe. This means that the unfolded icosahedron provides an image of the world that, unlike other flat maps, keeps proportionate to the globe map. The map can be unfolded in many different ways, so that there is no definitive ‘edge of the world’, no country that is definitively on the other side from any other, except relative to where they are on the actual earth. This ‘gameboard’ represents what Deleuze and Guattari refer to as Smooth Space. The net (shape of the map) is an unfolded sphere, providing for the player infinite pathways and thus infinite strategic possibilities, uninhibited by visual boundaries that are inherent in other types of map. It is interesting to note that Fuller’s game not only operates in the realm of Smooth Space, but also in that of Smooth Time. Fuller says, “As time goes on… and world-around information becomes available, the peaks and valleys of men’s total time can be ever-improvedly smoothed out… I have now circled the earth so many times that I think of it and literally sense it in my sight as a sphere… As a consequence my metabolic coordination has become independent of local time fixations.” (Anthology for the New Millennium, 131) In conjunction with the World Game’s Smooth Space and Time, the players of the game are much like those of the game Go. The term Worldman signifies a prototypical human being, who represents the Bare Maximum needs of every human on the planet. There is no hierarchy present in this view of humanity, and the players are simply the strategy-makers that plan the executions necessary to provide for (instead of destroy, as in Go), the Worldman. So, ironically (because waging war loses the game), the World Game is designed more like the War Game of Go than the State Game of Chess, whose pieces have intrinsic, not situational, value.
ReplyDeleteThe World Map is an ideal gameboard because it represents with most accuracy the smooth, 3D space of the world, in a 2D format. I cannot myself think of a better map design for the World Game. I believe the problem lies in D. and G’s defining a game of situational power, pure strategy, and smooth space with the word WAR. This is only a diction problem, as it can mislead one to have connotations of violence and murder. However, when explained in terms of the Nomad, the War Game is about ‘aggressive creativity’, and “every consolidated state induces renewed nomadic aggression and inventions…” This makes sense in relation to Fuller’s game: the players are looking at the world as in a function of State, which the players intend to aggressively/creatively change, as Nomad.
WC: 466
Buckminster Fuller's mapping of game- space represents the concept of the smooth space of Go Game. Fuller's idea simply relies on the nonsubjectifive view of the world as one. The continents, equally separated in relation to space, indicate that the continents are in equal value and cannot be view in a single way. Using some mathematical principles of his well- known geodesic domes as basics, Fuller carefully designed a way to display the world all at once with the least amount of visual distortion. Later after his designs and versions, he came up with his final icosahedral projection the 'Dymaxion Air Ocean World' as the word Dymaxion is referred to dynamic, maximum, and tension, which essentially means doing more with less emphasis on boundaries among us. In other words, with our increasing global awareness, we should unite as one to solves the issues among all nations and cultures as opposed to separate us and do our own business. The concept of 'smooth' space is based on the fact that every individual subject contains no intrinsic property, but serve the purpose as an unit. In Deleuze's point of view, a Go piece for example, 'it has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering.' On the other hand, Chess is institutionalized, regulated, coded war, with a font and rear battles. Go however has no battle lines, but pure strategy. Fuller's World Game has no doubt to fit in the category of the pure strategy war game, Go.
ReplyDeleteFuller's World Game fully demonstrates the possibilities of problem solving can be improved under his principles. Without restrictions, roles, or any differences, the team members of any age group are able to contribute to the project in an effective way; On the contrary, the reality is built on the state of Chess, where individuals perform biunivocal relations with one another. For instance, CEOs and entrepreneurs of the monopolies go against each other by controlling the chess pieces to eliminate the others. Fuller's map is an ideal game- board for the World Game. The construction of the map brilliantly connect the continents in a way that they are neither isolated or integrated, in a sense the teams are able to pinpoint the problems all at once. And because the problem solvers range from different ages, the teams can come up with various solutions and assumptions unlike the entrepreneurs' influence on the world's trend. Go proceeds altogether differently to create all the possibilities, whereas Chess codes and decodes space with regulations to reach the only possibility.
439 Words
Emily Cunningham
ReplyDeleteFuller’s mapping of game space is more similar to Deleuze’s definition of smooth space than striated space. Fuller describes his map in terms of having no up and down or north and south. He believed that the construction of most other maps was due to cultural bias, placing more importance on the north than the south. His map could be unfolded in a number of ways, showing all of the continents together as opposed to being divided by oceans or with the oceans at the center of the map and the continents surrounding them. There is fluidity in his map, which relates to Deleuze’s definition of nomad space. Nomad space, he explains, has “no perspective or contour”, and has no defined space because it relies on sets of relationships. The world game is more closely related to Go because they both ask the players to think outside of the box. The world game asks that its players come up with creative ways of solving world problems such as hunger or poverty, and the game Go, which is a war game, requires players to use creative aggression to win the game.
Fuller’s map works well for the World Game because it works to show all of the continents on the same level in terms of wealth and political status. In the World Game Fuller wanted to put emphasis on the game being a system that deals with the world as a whole and as being accessible to everyone. These points are well demonstrated in the map, which is set out in a way that is similar to Deleuze’s smooth space, without places that are designated starting or ending points. The World Game, being a war game, is best worked out on a map that promotes creative thinking from its players. This is also seen in Deleuze’s comparison of the nomad who is aggressively creative and the State who “plays the more passive role of consolidator”. The nomad thrives in a place that is “ ‘smooth’ and heterogeneous” which promotes a creative way of solving problems.
Fuller’s map, as a game space, is more smooth. I say “more”, because I think it can be argued for either smooth or striated. I think it is more smooth because there is no set path, no boarders, and no areas that are out of game play on the map. The whole map is available for game play; open to movement anywhere the player needs to go. The maps striated properties have to do with the fact that it has edges, and lots of them, and that despite your freedom to roam anywhere on the map, you still must stop and consider the edges of the map as your boarders. It seems that game play would be more of a smooth game space if played on something that had no end or edge, such as a sphere. The World Game, ironically enough, is actually more of a war game. It has no structuring rules, you are free to go where the game leads you, and resort to whatever you can think of, perhaps limited only to what is possible in the physical world. It is also aimed towards destroying the state, by unifying the entire world and getting rid of individual rule of governments.
ReplyDeleteFor what Fuller’s map is being used for in this scenario, I think it works fine. On the other hand, the map could be rethought. It seems like the breaking up of continents into the odd forms that we are not used to seeing causes disorientation. It also breaks up the connections between different locations. The map layout allows the continents to remain relatively proportional in size, it is the closest thing to splitting up the globe without stretching and distorting the landmass and oceans. If distance and proportion are of importance, than the distances between the countries that are on either sides of the map are greatly strewn, as are the ones on jutting edges that rotate away from the center. Also, continents and bodies of water may be sliced through and displayed as separate entities. This issue of distortion is going to be evident in all flat maps. Maybe the solution to the proposed problems, then, is playing on a globe as the game space. (371)
By breaking up the globe into the Dymaxion Map the way he did, Buckminster Fuller is providing his players with a game space which fall under Deleuze and Guttari’s classification of “smooth” space. If Fullere had done it from a State point of view, it is likely that he would have used a map that maintained a sense of orientation, possibly one similar to the ones we are used to in everyday life. The fact that a standard global map in the United States is created to be read left to right as English is, and is oriented with North America on the very left hand side is exemplary of Deleuze and Guittari’s definition of “striated space” – the map used for the World Game is anything but this. Though the World Game is an excersize in strategically planning for the well being of the world it seems to borrow notions of organized military planning the way that Western wars are strategized – taking into consideration the topographical limitations and special variations from location to location, country to country.
ReplyDeleteFuller’s map is seems very appropriate for its function in the World Game. Because it maintains the proportions of the Earth, it serves as an accurate description of the space of the game. The boarders and physical limitations set by the continents and the presence of the oceans are “continuous in variation” as is the defined smooth space of war games. It is curious to me that Fuller’s illustrated proposal for his geodesic dome in Montreal maintained the presence of his map – though successful for it’s original utility, the proposed space allowed for a 360 degree gathering of players, which to me seems to invite players to interact on a board game which was spherical, akin the shape of the Earth.
Fuller’s map is “smooth” because there is nothing that is limiting the map’s boundaries. The whole world is intended to be the playing field. The different terrain on earth come together to create one “smooth” field or plain. The players are not limited to where they can play. They can use the land, water and sky to fulfill their goals. Classifying Fuller’s map as “smooth” relates to the classification of The World Game as a “war game”.
ReplyDeleteA war game is defined as pure strategy, while a game of the state is a semiology. The World Game is like “Go” or a war game because the players are continuously adapting to the world’s needs. In the reading “The War Machine” Go pieces are defined as “elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. The players strategize and work to find to quickest, fastest, most efficient way to achieve the world’s needs. No one is assigned a position or purpose and is expected to only fulfill that purpose.
Fuller’s Map is successful because it allows the earth to be seen as one, smooth, surface. It shows how each land mass relates to each other because they are not distorted like in other maps. The map’s arrangement compliments Deleuze and Guattari’s concept that war games are played on “smooth” spaces. A war game and smooth space have no boundaries. Fuller designed the map to look like one large island, therefore “smoothing” out the earth. The World Game is a war game where the goal is to solve world problems for the largest areas possible. The World Game isn’t designed to go from one point of the map to the other like in games of the state played on “striated” space. The players move where they need to in order to win the game.
Word count: 306