comixology:

kane52630:

Watchmen Chapter I
Art by Dave Gibbons
Words by Alan Moore
Kane52630 Gifs

x


T F m
April 30, 2014

A software canon

jkottke:

Paul Ford set himself the task of picking five great works of software and he came up with Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Pac-Man, Unix, and Emacs.

I propose a different kind of software canon: Not about specific moments in time, or about a specific product, but rather about works of technology that transcend the upgrade cycle, adapting to changing rhythms and new ideas, often over decades.

As with everything Paul writes, it’s worth clicking through to read the rest.


T F m
April 30, 2014

A software canon

jkottke:

Paul Ford set himself the task of picking five great works of software and he came up with Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Pac-Man, Unix, and Emacs.

I propose a different kind of software canon: Not about specific moments in time, or about a specific product, but rather about works of technology that transcend the upgrade cycle, adapting to changing rhythms and new ideas, often over decades.

As with everything Paul writes, it’s worth clicking through to read the rest.


T F m
April 30, 2014


T F m
April 30, 2014

sophiaamoruso:

It’s hip to be square.

homage to a square


T F m
April 30, 2014

royeren:

steampoweredcupcake:

b-ryyy:

88floors:

Joseph Begley lights up rooms in a cheeky way with ‘Slap It’

A quick pinch or squeeze of the ‘slap it’ lamp by London-based designer Joseph Begley brightens up rooms with its warm glow. made from realistic feeling silicone, the cheeky light responds to pressure sensors when it is touched, directly turning it on or off.

Ok can I have

i want a few of every color in a room and have a bunch of people over for a buttslapping rave where we have to make the room flash by slappinbutts


T F m
April 30, 2014

royeren:

steampoweredcupcake:

b-ryyy:

88floors:

Joseph Begley lights up rooms in a cheeky way with ‘Slap It’

A quick pinch or squeeze of the ‘slap it’ lamp by London-based designer Joseph Begley brightens up rooms with its warm glow. made from realistic feeling silicone, the cheeky light responds to pressure sensors when it is touched, directly turning it on or off.

Ok can I have

i want a few of every color in a room and have a bunch of people over for a buttslapping rave where we have to make the room flash by slappinbutts


T F m
April 30, 2014

Threshold

clairehosking:

I don’t think anyone has to be interested in game definitions, mechanics, and inclusivity, but I am, mostly because new players/makers should hash out what games mean to them and what their yardsticks to measure games will be. I see debate over the extent of “games” as a sign that most people feel like they own some of games culture, they belong to it and it to them.

Openly believing-in-one’s-own-definition isn’t the case in all artforms. Visual arts suffer from the conception that “art” is hard to understand, hard to define, and hard to judge. It hurts the medium: It puts off students who aren’t sure if their work is “art”; it puts off fans by making it hard to walk into an exhibition and say ‘I think this is shallow. I think this is bad art.’ because they don’t have their own def of what art is. Acting like art is indefinable is widely used to shut down outsiders’ attempts to ‘get it’. (eg those asinine wags who’ll dead-end any attempt at reflection with ‘Ah, but what is art?’?). This uncertainty lets racists and sexists shield their racist and sexist work by claiming “It’s art” (ie indefinable, unquantifiable, and therefore unjudgable), as if that should stop us from critiquing, rather than invite critique. Maybe I’m putting too much emphasis on personal experience, but once someone clued me to a good working definition of art, my ability to appreciate, criticise, engage with and make art grew fast. YMMV.

On the other hand, conversations about music flourish at all levels and most people feel confident to say what they think and feel about it, in part because music is seen as intuitive to understand, intuitive to define, and intuitive to judge. (YMMV)

I think I’d prefer games to fall into more of the music situation of ‘you decide what you feel a game is, follow your star, let others follow theirs’, than the more visual art type attitude of ‘game can be anything, don’t even try defining it’

That’s why it’s important to me to feel like I’ve arrived at a position on how I define game, and I hope you arrive at one too, even if we don’t pick the same one.

_______________________________________

Back in 2012 a friend asked on twitter “Do you think Dear Esther is a game? Why/why not?”. I thought about it and how I make digital worlds for architecture, and wondered what was the difference between those and games. I felt that, amongst the many digital arts, games have challenges, that’s what differentiates them from other virtual worlds.

So I felt a little uneasy when I saw people so insistent that their work was games. I didn’t consider making walk-through digital architecture a demotion. Coming from both an architecture and procedural arts background, seemed odd to see people shrink from the idea that maybe their digital art falls into some non-game category.

I got talking about this to Bennett Foddy (@bfod) and Ed Key (@edclef) on twitter so I put my argument to them: kicking stuff out of the games category isn’t really kicking it out of the medium, because games aren’t the medium, just part of it. It’s weird to call games “a medium”, because they’re not like other media. Films are made on film, Dance is made of dances, Paintings of paint, Murals are on walls (from muralis, which means wall). The name of the medium is what it’s made of or on, not what the works are like or about. But “game”, on the other hand, seems to strongly imply what the content is. Games are made of code*, but unfortunately they aren’t called “codings”, and it’s a pity we don’t have a good word to describe all the expressive things made of code. (Programs is perhaps closest, but it sounds so serious. I like “app” but it’s so strongly associated with one brand.)

Read More


T F m
April 30, 2014

Theorising the Web 2014 talk: What does a Materialist Account of a Ludic Century Look Like? Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Counter Strike

dropouthangoutspaceout:

This is the transcript of the talk I gave at this year’s Theorizing the Web Conference in New York City. I know there is a video recording from teh conference circulating somewhere, but I had to cut out some of the depth to fit the talk into the time permitting. Consider this the directors cut. It’s an attempt at not going to deep into theory while dealing with a very theoretical problem. A more detailed and “academic” version of this will find its way into a journal article in the next year or so. Hope you enjoy!

So last year Eric Zimmerman, a game designer and professor at the NYU Game Center wrote a manifesto for a ludic century. The points he makes lead one towards a conception of the 21th century as the century defined by games at the cultural, communicative and political level. Games become all

This presentation is a gesture towards what a materialist theory of a “ludic century” is. The goal here isn’t so much to debunk such visions as “bourgeois fantasies” or “idealist utopianism” but rather to make sense of the tendencies that Zimmerman has seen in our society and what that might mean for both an analytic understanding of such a system as well as a political one. This is then an entirely a priori materialist theory of a ludic century.

Read More


T F m
April 30, 2014

arssociety:

Ten Rules for Writers by Zadie Smith

1. When still a child, make sure you read a lot of books. Spend more time doing this than anything else.

2. When an adult, try to read your own work as a stranger would read it, or even better, as an enemy would.

3. Don’t romanticise your “vocation”. You can either write good sentences or you can’t. There is no “writer’s lifestyle”. All that matters is what you leave on the page.

4. Avoid your weaknesses. But do this without telling yourself that the things you can’t do aren’t worth doing. Don’t mask self-doubt with contempt.

5. Leave a decent space of time between writing something and editing it.

6. Avoid cliques, gangs, groups. The presence of a crowd won’t make your writing any better than it is.

7. Work on a computer that is disconnected from the ­internet.

8. Protect the time and space in which you write. Keep everybody away from it, even the people who are most important to you.

9. Don’t confuse honours with achievement.

10. Tell the truth through whichever veil comes to hand – but tell it. Resign yourself to the lifelong sadness that comes from never ­being satisfied.

via The Guardian


T F m
April 30, 2014