|
games anime | toys
|
 
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
protomark's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
|
|
| get involved register or login post a blog post a forum enter a contest contribute a news tip suggest a feature be a guest editor |
support new member's guide login assistance tech support report abuse email our editors read our dev blog nuclear crisis? |
keep in touch RSS feed Myspace Flickr Game nights Meetup+play online |
seriously about Destructoid advertising terms of use privacy policy jobs at MM buy our crap |
our network Tomopop Japanator Despingation? |
||
|
||||||
 living the dream since March 16, 2006 |
||||||
As an art school graduate and all around smart guy, I can say with all authority that I am way too stupid to understand any of that.
Please explain.
The way i see it, the article is talking about how the practice of tool-assisted speedruns and circuit bending, the game art of cory arcangel, and the mindset of the 'gamer' as opposed to the 'player' don't seem to count as simply consuming or simply creating - they kind of exist outside of that whole dichotomy. these folks are using pre-created (programmed) media and reconfiguring them through trial and error, instead of working based on extensive technical knowledge. the result is something novel that was actually always there to begin with, so it's like creation without creation.
the megaman speedrun mentioned abuses lots of glitchy stuff about the game's that would be impossible to discern without actually looking at the game's code and impossible for a non-assisted human to execute, but the fact remains that nothing in the game's code was edited and no cheat codes were used. so it's evident that those responsible didn't just play the game - but they didn't create anything new besides a video and a webpage, so whatever they did can't be classified as simply using or programming.
The author of the essay argues that this kind of practice is akin to something like shining a laser into a camera to render oneself unidentifiable - it's a way of shedding identity and becoming unaccounted for in a digital realm or something like that. What interests me about the article is how this guy uses videogames to try and explain this. it's neat!
Wow, thanks for translating that!
From what you're telling me, they see sequence breaking kind of like Burroughs notion of cut-ups. That kind of alternate application of someone else's craft has always seemed a little weird to me, like breaking TV's picture tube then calling it a radio. It's only a radio because you made it a radio, and only if that's all you want it to see it as. Others, like the people who made it, would probably see it as a broken TV, and think you were kind of weird for breaking it.
There is nothing invisible or nonexistent about being a TV breaking, radio loving weirdo.
It's interesting to note that the reason the author uses videogame hacks as a base example is because videogame technology comprises the best example of "proprietary digital technology," or in other words, a closed-source technology with a specific use mandated by the developer, which i think is a reasonable statement to make. I think the author's point is to make a case for this kind of work as a sort of artful reappropriation of technology such as game consoles - creating a new kind of expression with the device without actually altering its functionality. What Cory Arcangel did with Super Mario Clouds was use the NES and Super Mario Brothers as was intended for use to express something outside their intended use. I find this super-cool.
I agree though that the author's use of the word nonexistent is kinda confusing and possibly really pretentious.