The Lattice Initiative is virtually unknown, a classroom exercise that just barely made it into the development stages before coming to a complete halt. However, it being unknown is no crime to human knowledge or some misfortune caused by faulty implementation. No, it is unknown because it has never been implemented at all (with good reason).
(Caption: There wasn’t an app for that.)
Simply put, the Lattice Initiative is a new form of communication conceived originally to harness the design and behavior (or lack thereof) of the Internet. As with all types of communication, the Initiative, at its core, is a language. Unlike those we speak and write, it is a coded language not meant to be read like a book or spoken like a lecture. Instead, much like the figure it is named after, it is a language meant to connect meaning and significance in an ever-growing array, expanding as far as it possibly can and encompassing all aspects of knowledge and thought. Understandably, this concept might sound somewhat absurd, and the implications and faults within, I admit, are abundantly present on the surface. Despite this the initiative does bring awareness to certain aspects of language that can be applied to other forms; tangible forms such as film and literature, as well as the genres within them. Having mentioned genre, Rick Altman’s semantic/syntactic/pragmatic (S/S/P) approach to genre theory seems to highlight both the positives and the negatives present in the Lattice Initiative. Because of this, I propose that through the analysis of both the Initiative and Altman’s S/S/P approach to film genre theory, a case for the creation of universally recepted film genres can be made.
While I must refrain from demonstrating specific details of the Lattice Initiative in order to preserve the intent and integrity of the project, I will freely share the basic workings and ideas behind the project in order to illustrate the transposed theories of Altman in a functional setting. The Lattice Initiative is meant, first and foremost, to create a world of fluid language and meaning. It has been stated that art and language often adapt over time as new mediums and technology are invented. For example, the novel was created after the printing press, the film after the movie camera, and the album after vinyl LPs (of course, this idea is purposefully left open for debate). If one could consider the Internet as a medium in itself, then the Lattice Initiative aims to utilize such a medium in order to create something new.
(Caption: Escher’s early concepts of “The Internet”)
As mentioned before, the Initiative means to create a fluid language designed to be utilized and dispersed over the Internet. Despite advances in visual media and streaming, the Internet is still largely text-based. Logically, a new language designed for the Internet must also be based in text. However, text on the Internet is special, referred to generally as “hyper-text.” This hyper-text is special in that links can be embedded in any text, bringing the user, or reader, to another area of text presumably related to that which came before it. Aside from this method of linking, the Internet also caters to old forms of media: photos, videos, fiction, film, etc. However, the media remains linear. The Internet brings nothing new to these forms, other than enabling them to be more accessible to a wider audience. As the novel is to the printing press, so too will the Lattice Initiative be to the Internet. The Initiative will take advantage of the linked nature of the Internet by creating a codex of key words, distinguishable from any other language in that on their own, they have no inherent meaning. These key words will then be linked to any type of media that is meant to be associated with the word. Theoretically, with enough time and enough linking, these key words will have meanings that grow and spread across the Internet, effectively creating a new language for anyone and everyone to use at their discretion. In less abstract terms, imagine that User One has been given a word from the codex. For now we will refer to this word as “null.” User One proceeds to post “null” in as many places as he can, such as in the comments for YouTube videos (or in the videos themselves), or on blogs or news sites. Anything and everything that can be altered and linked is fair game for the user to link to “null.” The idea, then, would be for User Two to come along and notice a pattern. He will discover “null” while watching a video. He will then do a search for “null” on his favorite search engine which will yield in page after page of content and media not only related to “null,” but also to the video at the beginning of this so-called chain reaction. In optimal circumstances, User Two will then, after catching on to the pattern, begin posting “null” in even more places. Perhaps the meaning will be altered with his actions, perhaps not. It does not matter, for User Three will come along and do the same. Four, Five, Six, Seven, and so on will continue the pattern, until the pattern is able to sustain itself. In theory, this is how any language is formed.
(Caption: Except for this. Nobody knows how the hell this happened.)
While reading Film/Genre, I discovered that in his conclusion Altman’s discussion of the reception of genre appears to share similarities to the concepts of the Lattice Initiative, both positives and negatives. Altman’s original approach to film genre, the Semantic/Syntactic (S/S), is a formula designed to, in part, explain the “complex phenomena” of genre. He admits that this simplistic approach leaves room for questioning, in turn leaving little room for explanation. In his defense, Altman states that the S/S approach serves nicely in analyzing specific texts in their relation to “generic groupings.” And this is where I begin to find a link to the Lattice Initiative: Altman states that the reception and interpretation by different sets of audiences will ultimately result in disparate elements found in the same film. The weakness in the S/S approach is also a weakness in the Initiative. Both must rely on the reception of the audience, or “user.” If the reception becomes disparate, then the language becomes unstable, and as a result, unusable.
Thankfully, Altman makes a grand effort to expand his approach, using an example of commutation tests in language in order to pinpoint the place in which language garners distinguished meaning. There is a noticeable pattern in the way we (language-speaking humans) use language in order to derive meaning from the sounds we create. If this pattern is applied on the textual level, higher levels of meaning can be made based on usage. Altman explains this is a process linguists call “pragmatic analysis”, hence the addition to his approach (Semantic/Syntactic/Pragmatic). By this process, meaning in text is recursive in that it depends on the level of meaning before it in order to define itself above it. The S/S/P approach provides more room (for good and bad) to the formula of genre analysis. The bad is that the illusion of linearity distracts us from the mass potential for conflict and collapse. Real-world language, no matter how simple or limited, will have a single user at a single moment. Because of this, these users will undoubtedly provide conflict in the use of the language. To reel back in from abstract terminology, this weakness as applied to the Lattice Initiative would be manifested in the blatant misuse of a coded word. Going back to my previous example, if User Two happened to misinterpret the meaning of “null” and began creating an entirely different meaning, the levels of meaning would collapse on themselves and the validity of the language is void.
(Caption: This homeowner continued to confuse “there” with “their.”)
If every meaning depends on an indeterminate number of potentially conflicting users, then no stable communication can take place; so, in the case of spoken language, for example, society has artificially restricted the range of acceptable uses (we call this grammar). If every meaning had to be deferred, then communication would literally be impossible; society prefers to restrict communication rather than risk full freedom, which might destroy communication altogether.
If the Lattice Initiative somehow managed to embed itself as a new Internet language, Altman has already predicted the outcome. The amount of users necessary to propagate the language would most likely result in enough conflict that a stable meaning could never be derived from the codex of words created. Similarly, in film, a new genre could never be agreed upon if the meaning behind it could not be uniformly interpreted by its audience.
It may yet be unclear why I am drawing a parallel between the Lattice Initiative, a project blatantly meant to complicate perceptions of language and communication, and Altman’s S/S/P approach to film genre. However circular, I draw this parallel because Altman has provided a convincing argument that what is true about the nature of genre, is also try about the nature of all language and communication. Taking account of the limitations and implications of genre and language reception, I feel that it may yet be possible to not only create, but to firmly establish new genres in film (and perhaps in other texts, as well).
It is often theorized that genre’s precede user perception. What I find interesting is that users do not always (read: hardly ever) follow the guidelines presented by a genre. In his book, Altman illustrates genre expectation, and how the user influences the maker just as much as the maker influences the user. My focus is on the latter. How can the maker establish a genre without room for alteration or misinterpretation? Already we are presented with numerous genres: Horror, Western, Action, Comedy, Drama, and so on. These genres, however specific, are also just as open for interpretation and blending. Again, how can one create a genre that can sustain a meaning, bridging all gaps between every user group?
Initially (and naively) I thought it was as simple as limiting the criteria for the genre. For instance, there would be the color genres. All films featuring prominent red objects, scenery, or characters could be classified in their own genre. The red genre. On the surface level, this is simple; deceivingly so, as one will then begin to question the definition of “prominence.” How much red must be in the film before it is considered to be part of the red genre? What if there is also blue? Already we arrive at an impasse. A level of meaning as basic as color is fraught with interpretational error. People will question the meaning of the colors. Does red mean the same thing in all the films, or does it represent something different each time? Just imagine the exponential increase in complication when you start making genres like the “Child Genre,” a genre comprised of films with children in them. Or a “Car Genre”. Or a “Cigar Genre.” The list is endless, the complications more so.
Faced with this headache, I look back to the Lattice Initiative and I remember my thoughts during its conception. I ask myself, “How will we avoid misinterpretation of the language?” Ultimately, my answer almost feels like a cop out, but perhaps it isn’t. Acknowledging the large potential for communication breakdown among the mass of potential language users, the nature of the Lattice Initiative has been modified to encourage disparity. Nothing is finite. User One begins the language with one word, and one meaning. He sets it free, and inevitably other users will come along. Their interpretation is no less forbidden than the initial’s. Meaning will evolve, meaning will shift, meaning will never be constant. As long as this is meant to be a naturally occurring process of the language created, then the problem of disparity is not a problem at all, but the solution.
I realize I make this process sound easy and painless. But it isn’t. The fact remains that users will forever breed disparity. Even the concept of disparity being a desired effect will not be met by all users involved. And even then there will be those that are non-users, those that refuse to use or acknowledge this new language. Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely that the abstract, interpretive nature of the Lattice Initiative could ever be translated to a seemingly more linear form such as film. In fact, as I think of it only now, to encourage disparity in a language as widespread as film, or God help us, the Internet, would be to encourage the inevitable deconstruction and failure of the systems we depend on every day of our lives.
Ultimately, user reception is an inherent fault in fully devising a flawless formula of genre specification, just as it is a fault in creating a language understood and utilized consistently by everyone involved. Because language is multi-user by nature, the meaning derived by the words we speak and the text we create could never be shared universally. Just as the Lattice Initiative will likely never succeed beyond its first few stages, a new genre able to avoid disparate reception will likely never be created. This is not to say that new genres cannot be created. Quite the contrary, in fact, as “Superhero” films are now considered a genre of their own, for one example. Again, it comes to being a matter of interpretation. Until the world is ready (let alone able) to share a common language, complete with shared meaning reception, we will have to agree to disagree. For risk of destroying the very fabric of communication, let them have their genres.
(Caption: And cake. Please GOD let there be cake.)