Take the underlying theory of multiple worlds as a point of departure, and reflect on the historic and socio-political conditions that require and produce the making and breaking of worlds.
A world is composed of a specific frame of reference, it defines how we perceive and relate to base reality and gives meaning to it.
A world needs us to believe in it so it can protect us from overwhelming complexity.
A world follows it’s own logic and dynamic.
Once externalized it takes a life of its own.
“A World is an artificial living thing,
but a living thing nonetheless.” — Ian Cheng
There are different ideas of what the activity of worlding pertains. It ranges from the imagination and fostering of fantastical cosmologies, utopias or futures you can believe in to the construction of new reality systems or the active forging of functional systemic alternatives.
Gameworlds often reinforce stereotypes and perpetuate past and present power structures as well as their claims on Worldmaking. To produce stories which defy the dominant narrative, requires a critical analysis of representation in storyworlds, but also the invitation of diverse authors into their making.
Multiple WorldsThis research begins with attempts at dissolving the illusion of a ‘common world’, that appears already co-opted by satisfying hegemonial claims for (its) order. Surely, colliding worlds are confronting. Their crashing can make a mess in our shelf of convictions as it unravels the seams of our thinking fabric and yet, this is a proposal to embrace complexity, leaving the comfort of one's own skull or self applauding filter bubble.
In Ways of Worldmaking (1978) Nelson Goodman already performs the ontological turn away from a dualist approach of ‘Many worldviews, only one world’. What follows it the radical gesture of multiplying the world. Once we have shattered the illusion of the universal, what are the implications of this such relativism for public and artistic discourse? How can we construct a common place in which multiple worlds intermingel instead of drifting apart in a fight about the centerstage?
“It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism,” — Fredric Jameson & Slavoj Žižek
All worlds eventually come to an end...Federico Campagna suggests, the end of a world is induced when no further chapters within that world-axiomatic story can, or ought to be, written.
Common World vs. Worlds in Common
The discrepancy between globalized modes of inhabitation and a (theoretical) planetary condition can be captured in the following distinction: the difference between the making of a common world vs. the making of worlds in common. — Patricia Reed
The making of a common world is coincident with ‘the entropic tendency towards the elimination of the diverse’,— Bernard Stiegler
How do we learn inadaptation to a given world configuration?— Patricia Reed
How do we unmake a world?
Dissolving the illusion of a ‘common world’, that appears already co-opted by satisfying hegemonial claims for (its) order and taking the underlying theory of multiple worlds as a point of departure for exercises in ‘Collective Worlding’.
As a niche and often volatile appearance, the term ‘Collective Worlding’ originated in the context of roleplay games and fiction writing, ushering projects in which an online community constructs a growing metanarrative as well as its animation, increasingly facilitated by worldbuilding softwares or online mapping tools.
A collective world building RPG that enables players to jump around in time and zoom from the overarching narrative into details of the fractal storyline to pla out scenes and answer questions that the players choose to focus on.
Relational Worlding shifts the focus from existence to coexistence, from questions of where things are to how they hang together. It considers entanglement and interdependence on a micro and macro level.
Instead of channeling energy and resources into new inventions that fix the world it sets out to changing the world itself, that beeing the ideas and attitudes inside our heads.