This Is Not A Pipe: Representation vs. Simulation

“Historically, we have relied on representation to portray both reality and fiction, generally articulating it under the form of narrative. However, the introduction of the computer has unleashed a new way of communicating and understanding our world and thoughts: simulation. Simulation does not simply represents objects and systems, but it also models their behaviors.”

— Gonzalo Frasca “Simulation 101: Simulation versus Representation” (2000)

Simulation is a concept that has existed for many years across many fields  The word arrived in English from French and Latin, and carried with it negative connotations. For Plato simulations were false images and brought fears that simulations will usurp the original to become the primary. This fear continued into modern times, with the discussion around simulation in the humanities often begins and ends with Jean Baudrillard. In the 80s and 90s, Baudrillard believed that the copy would overtake the original. To Baudrillard, the advancement of virtual reality technologies prove that he was right. Gonzalo Frasca, on the other hand suggests that while representation and simulation may appear similar,  exploring differences is valuable to understanding narrative in a computer age.

Representation immerses readers in a cognitive way; the medium, perhaps a book, exists in a separate physical location to the reader. Whereas simulation is corporeal, the person and the medium exist in the same physical and virtual space. Frasca illustrates this difference using Magritte’s La Trahison Des Images. The famous painting portrays an image of a pipe, with the words ‘this is not a pipe’ written underneath. The pipe is of course not a physical pipe, instead it is a representation. Because of the way we use representation to depict and explain, the representation of the pipe tells people a lot about actual pipes. The representation is not however exhaustive, and Frasca suggests a representation will always be an incomplete task.

How would you explain how a pipe works to someone who has never seen one? Usually, Frasca argues, we would use narrative, perhaps making a film about how to use a pipe. Instead Frasca describes using a simulation, which tells the story of how to use a pipe by focusing on its mechanics. The representation and the simulation appear similar; they tell a similar story. However, the difference with using a simulation to explain the mechanics of the pipe is that nothing happens if they do not press the button and interact. Narratives often work from the bottom-up; we are told an event and infer rules. Simulation works in reverse; we are given rules to apply to particular examples.

Frasca suggests that narrative does exists in the external observation of a simulation’s outcome. The person playing the simulation does not feel like they are reading, or being read a story, but that they are experiencing the events personally. Because of this simulation needs representation and narratives but its not itself a narrative.

Understanding the nuance of differences between simulation and representation is important in a technological world. Representation and narratives have been the dominant way of understanding concepts. Computers and advancements in technology mean that simulation becomes a sophisticated tool for education and entertainment. Despite this, Frasca does not believe simulation will replace representation as Plato and Baudrillard feared.