Breaking The Rules

Katie brought up the idea of community. I think that's really wise. So far today, there has been a little bit of an emphasis on the heroic, slash tragic, singular figure, breaking rules, going against the system. But in a sense, all of us are buried in communities that we rise out of, whether it's the Sundance indie film world or the world of poetry, whether you're against it or you're the establishment, go with the flow figure, you have something that buoys you. So why did you bring "community" up?

I brought it up because the notion of rules is completely connected to the enactment of community. In games, rules are equalities. They are it and they are binding. This means that everyone agrees there is a penalty if you step outside of them. Rules are shared.

When you watch little kids play a game, they're constantly revising the rules. But they're revising the rules as a group. An example is that if you watch kids playing baseball out in a lot, and they say this tree it second base and that home base is a beer can... If they agree, then those are the rules. Then, some kid will make a slight change and say, "No, no, no. I'm going to make my shoe third base." As long as everyone in the group agrees, the rule changes seamlessly and there's fluidity.

When I think about rules, about how they are embedded within a community and how they're enforced, shared, and even reinvented and transformed within a group, not so much about the singular person, transgressing that rule and then making everybody else come along, there's a clear and common understanding as a group - they all move forward to a rule change.

People that break rules often do it with agreement of a larger community. We talked about the indie film community. Think of it as a shared sense of transgression supported by a group of people working in opposition to a mainstream system. Whenever we talk about rule breaking, we want to begin to understand the role of the community in either supporting the rule or making rule breaking possible. Because there are a lot of systems, the idea that you can shift and change rules a little bit at a time offers fluidity in these systems.

The best kinds of communities own their rules. They are able to have great inventiveness and great creativity within their rules. However, when the rules get super fixed and people refuse to negotiate them, or refuse to re-look at them, that's when and where, I feel, creativity dies in some way.

Katie brought up the idea of community. I think that's really wise. So far today, there has been a little bit of an emphasis on the heroic, slash tragic, singular figure, breaking rules, going against the system. But in a sense, all of us are buried in communities that we rise out of, whether it's the Sundance indie film world or the world of poetry, whether you're against it or you're the establishment, go with the flow figure, you have something that buoys you. So why did you bring "community" up?

I brought it up because the notion of rules is completely connected to the enactment of community. In games, rules are equalities. They are it and they are binding. This means that everyone agrees there is a penalty if you step outside of them. Rules are shared.

When you watch little kids play a game, they're constantly revising the rules. But they're revising the rules as a group. An example is that if you watch kids playing baseball out in a lot, and they say this tree it second base and that home base is a beer can... If they agree, then those are the rules. Then, some kid will make a slight change and say, "No, no, no. I'm going to make my shoe third base." As long as everyone in the group agrees, the rule changes seamlessly and there's fluidity.

When I think about rules, about how they are embedded within a community and how they're enforced, shared, and even reinvented and transformed within a group, not so much about the singular person, transgressing that rule and then making everybody else come along, there's a clear and common understanding as a group - they all move forward to a rule change.

People that break rules often do it with agreement of a larger community. We talked about the indie film community. Think of it as a shared sense of transgression supported by a group of people working in opposition to a mainstream system. Whenever we talk about rule breaking, we want to begin to understand the role of the community in either supporting the rule or making rule breaking possible. Because there are a lot of systems, the idea that you can shift and change rules a little bit at a time offers fluidity in these systems.

The best kinds of communities own their rules. They are able to have great inventiveness and great creativity within their rules. However, when the rules get super fixed and people refuse to negotiate them, or refuse to re-look at them, that's when and where, I feel, creativity dies in some way.

The more conscious of the audience, the weaker the message, and what you offer, becomes. I think the notion of trying to respond to audience, or trying to consider audience, means you give away yourself, because you're actually trying to project what's out there, and it takes away the magic of their discovery.

The more conscious of the audience, the weaker the message, and what you offer, becomes. I think the notion of trying to respond to audience, or trying to consider audience, means you give away yourself, because you're actually trying to project what's out there, and it takes away the magic of their discovery.

 

Less

It's a lot easier to be a rule breaker when you're 22 ... I'm 42, you know, and it feels different now ... it costs me something. It didn't cost me anything when I was 23. But it costs me something now.

It's a lot easier to be a rule breaker when you're 22 ... I'm 42, you know, and it feels different now ... it costs me something. It didn't cost me anything when I was 23. But it costs me something now.

 

Less

I think you need rules. Otherwise, it's just a big mess. It's nothing. It's chaos. But you have to recognize that most of those rules are arbitrary. When you start to cross them out, and connect other rules to them, you create something that actually has form, structure, and could hopefully become beautiful if it's worked out and connected enough.

I think you need rules. Otherwise, it's just a big mess. It's nothing. It's chaos. But you have to recognize that most of those rules are arbitrary. When you start to cross them out, and connect other rules to them, you create something that actually has form, structure, and could hopefully become beautiful if it's worked out and connected enough.

 

Less

The thing about communities that's kind of curious is that they are sort of like affinity groups. And the more specific you get, the more connected you can get. Then there are really diverse groups, and the diverse groups are the ones who actually can problem solve. But even in very diverse networks, people start to really bring in this kind of homogenous thinking… this sort of magnetic draw of diverse groups, to become more homogenous. It's like we have more of a thirst for connectedness than we do for divergence. Even when we know that the connectedness will reduce our ability to be creative and interesting.

The thing about communities that's kind of curious is that they are sort of like affinity groups. And the more specific you get, the more connected you can get. Then there are really diverse groups, and the diverse groups are the ones who actually can problem solve. But even in very diverse networks, people start to really bring in this kind of homogenous thinking… this sort of magnetic draw of diverse groups, to become more homogenous. It's like we have more of a thirst for connectedness than we do for divergence. Even when we know that the connectedness will reduce our ability to be creative and interesting.

 

Less