Its strange isn't it?

How we become dependent on our technology?

There are people who, like some kind of neo-luddites, disconnect themselves from anything technological in order to 'get back to nature', or 'slow down'. While I have a kind of grudging respect for them, I don't see the point.

In the last 50 years human ingenuity has come up with hundreds of gadgets and technological marvels which have the potential to make us more productive, more creative and less parochial than those who live a mere 2 generations before us.

We have devices that allow us to communicate with people on the other side of the world, and they fit in our pockets. We are connected to each other's knowledge in so many ways that we really have no further excuse for ignorance and prejudice.

As those who follow my twitter or Facebook are aware (two more technologies that are having a huge impact on our societies) I am without my own computer for the first time in almost a decade. I am currently writing this on my wife's laptop, which I only have access to while she's not using it. It has none of my collected thoughts on it, none of the little apps that I have installed and forgotten about but that I really notice the lack of. It also has none of my games and is incapable of running any but those released a good 5 years ago.

Seriously, its like having a piece of my brain removed. I use my PC as a repository of random thoughts, doodles, and other miscellany. Its as if certain key parts of my memory have been excised, parts that may well be incidental but which nevertheless play a large part in making me who I am. Its disorienting, debilitating and the only cure is to throw money which I don't have into buying new parts.

I had thought that a new power supply would be the answer to my problems, but the power supply arrived and it turned out to be the motherboard. The new motherboard I have (which I bought in relative ignorance of new memory standards and CPU compatibility) is not going to take the memory that I already have. Its turned into an epic clusterfuck and I'm getting frustrated with the whole enterprise.

I should consider myself lucky I suppose, that I have access to other computers which I can use to get may daily dose of connectedness, but its not my computer. The whole endeavour has highlighted to me how dependent I have become on technology, how enmeshed my life has become with a network of devices. How much of a cyborg I really am. We truly are living in the future.

M out

Are we living in Gibson's Future?

"20 years ago, it was another world. Now, its our world. Its where the banks keep your money" - William Gibson, Today Program, BBC Radio 4, Oct. 5 2010

In 1984, a book came out which now seems eerily prescient. It predicted a world enmeshed in a network of computers. Everything was connected, from toasters to telephones. Business was done over this network, battles were fought and crimes were committed. In the two and a half decades since its publication, the world has become the one represented in it, or has it?

Gamers Vs Ebert - A Fight No-one Can Win

It would seem the controversy surrounding Roger Ebert's assertion (which he sort of retracted) that videogames could not be art is still running. In the post, Mr. Ebert posts clip which a gamer, calling himself nofec, has cited as blowing movies out of the water and Mr Ebert responds with a clip of his own. I'll reproduce them here.

nofec's clip which features Okami on the PS2


Mr.Ebert's clip from Myazaki's anime My Neighbour Tortorro


As is my usual style, I went to write a short comment berating them both for continuing this ultimately pointless debate and it turned into an epic ramble. So, instead of hijacking Mr. Ebert's comments thread I'm going to post my response here instead and merely link to it in the comments of that post. So below find the comment I was going to make in full.


Mr Ebert and nofec,

Games are art, movies are art they're just different kinds of art.

There are things that movies can do that games can't, but equally there are things games can do that movies can't. Same with sculpture and literature and music, and drama etc. etc.

And nofec, thats no way to make an argument winning point. You start from the premise that the worth of the clip you link to will be self-evident to everyone (and without the context of interaction that is the heart of every game its pretty meaningless anyway.) This is a common mistake when arguing a point like this. The whole point about art is that what it is and isn't is entirely subjective. Nothing is ever self-evident, you're going to have to be more convincing with your argument. The same, however, could be said of Mr Ebert's clip. Must try harder, see me after class :P

Whatever artistic value each clip has is ultimately given to them by those that experience them (and I'm including the experience of making the art in the first place.) So saying "look at this isn't it awesome?" may be a great way to share your perception of an artwork (whatever form that work may take) but you shouldn't be surprised if every so often the reply comes back: "Meh, its OK I suppose but it does nothing for me."

I can see the art in both your clip and Mr Eberts (amazing film btw, my 4 yr old loves Miyazaki-san's work, as do I. And Okami is one of the few mainstream game titles that really does deserve to be called art, along with Ico and Shadow of the Colossus) but thats not going to help anyone, I can also discern the differences between the two mediums and why some people might not get either one.

From a critical standpoint you cannot say that one is better than the other, simply because they are so different. Its like saying that the sound of a violin tastes better than cerise. It just doesn't make any sense. So why don't you simply agree to disagree and admit to each other that there is value in both viewpoints? Continuing the debate is a pointless exercise as it is obvious that neither side is going to be convinced by the other. Let's just let it go eh?

There is also the risk that if either side wins (Games are never art and never will be art/Games are superior to film and always will be) the sum of human culture will be lessened by that victory? In my opinion the more different viewpoints there are of art and what it is (and there are approximately 6 billion and counting at the moment) the richer and more diverse our culture  becomes. This is something to be treasured, to deny that is to make us out to be less than what we are.

It is not the place of games to blow movies out of the water, and neither is the reverse true. You both may perceive that they accomplish this (from your contrasting viewpoints of course) but it is not the purpose of either medium. Their purpose is simply to be, and add to the great melting pot that is our culture, teaching each of us about ourselves and the rest of humanity in their own ways and in ways that each of us will perceive differently.

M out

Artists, Publishers and a New World Order

I made quite a lengthy comment on Facebook regarding the revolution in the creative arts which the rise of digital distribution has instigated. I now reproduce it in full here, as I know that not everyone is on Facebook (yet) and hardly any of those follow me.

The comment was a response to another comment from someone asking how publishers of creative work (books, movies, music, games, etc) should protect 'their' work from being freely distributed. It sarted with someone complaining that the DRM in an eBook that they had obtained for work purposes had installed software without asking and now they couldn't get rid of it. Well here you are:

Tl;dr: Publishers are parasites who used to be symbiotes but the host no longer needs them. They restrict creativity and leech income from creators and use the money they make to lobby for legislation to protect their untenable position.

Long ramble ahead, sorry.

Its not the publishers that should be getting the money in the first place, its the authors/artists/musicians.

The rise of digital technology has rendered the middlemen (publishers, record companies, movie studios) obsolete. They just refuse to accept that and are going out kicking and screaming. The thing the middle men most fear is a world where artists can market their art (be it books, music, movies or games) directly to the consumer and pocket all the proceeds themselves.

I've read opinions from a lot of artists (Neils Gaiman, Cory Doctorow, Trent Reznor, and more) in a variety of industries which basically boil down to the fact that the thing they most fear is obscurity rather than not getting paid. Granted most of them have made their money and can probably afford to retire on what they have now, but many of them are still doing what they do because they love doing it and know that others enjoy their work, not for the money.

Look at the maker of Minecraft for example, Notch has been making, marketing and supporting the game as basically a one man show for the past 18 months and now has enough money to start his own development company. No publisher involved.

I would gladly pay money for something if I knew that all of that money was going directly to the people that made it rather than a bunch of corporate leeches who don't know that their time is up.

The more people who are exposed to a work of art, the more people who are likely to pay for it, especially if all the publisher's overheads are removed from the equation. By paying creators directly, creators can charge much less for their work and still make a healthy amount of cash. lower prices mean that more people will be willing to fork out for something (look at the steam sales statistics for the economics of that).

Taking the Minecraft example once again. Notch charges 9.95 for what is basically an alpha build of his game and this guarantees the user access to all future updates. If a big publisher had sunk millions into developing it and marketing it then you'd be paying 4 times as much for a game that would be nothing like Minecraft, because its new and different and not a 'sure thing'. 

Not only do the middlemen live off the work of others, they limit creativity by only publishing things that they know already works. Anything even the slightest bit risky or avant garde doesn't get a look in.

The old order is dead, it just doesn't know it yet and they've got so much money to buy politicians with that its taking a while for people to see through their scam.

So there you have it, my take on where the creative industries are right now and why we're getting lumbered with idiotic legislation like ACTA and The Digital Economy Bill. For the most part the creators don't want to restrict our access to their work, they want their work to be experienced and enjoyed by as many people as possible. Not only do Publishers want to keep taking their cut in a world which no longer has a use for them, they are willing to use the might of the coercive state to do their dirty work.

To that end, if there are any creative types out there who have something interesting that they want to share with the world. Drop me a line on this page and let me know about it. I'll be happy to write a post about it, but only if everything you make from it is going directly in your own pocket, publishers and PR firms need not apply.

M out