Technica by Swallows Fly Low

Bandcamp for the album here. Great little vid. Love the use of layers, and check the cool continuity when it moves from the overlaid flowers to the moving pattern of splotchy gum on the sidewalk. Sweet.

Gives me a similar vibe to a lot of Bibio’s stuff, actually. Here’s ‘Fire Ant’ for comparison’s sake (okay Fire Ant is an unfair comparison, it’s really incredible).

And here’s a sweet rap over that Bibio track by Perrion, just for funsies. See what I mean by it being an unfair comparison? That beat is too good.

Posted in Music, video | Leave a comment

Comparative feelpinions about Far Cry 3

Most of my readers will remember that I’m known as one of the biggest fans of Far Cry 2 in the world, having done my ‘Permanent Death’ saga in which I played through the game in one life and documented my progress and how playing in that manner changed the game. So readers should know that I’m already hopelessly biased against the sequel to what is, in my estimation, one of if not the most interesting and important game of our generation.

So in trying to work through my initial reactions to Far Cry 3 I’m faced with the impossible task of trying to sort out my inevitable disappointment from some more legitimate gripes. John Walker has already listed a bunch of things that he finds incredibly grating about the game, but there’s one particular issue that I haven’t seen anyone really put their finger on.

I think the main issue I have with the game is that I don’t like its tone, and I’ll explain what I mean by that with a couple of examples. The tone of FC2 was incredibly ambiguous, and almost entirely unique. Tom Bissell in his review of the rubbish Spec Ops: The Line, described FC2, saying that, “the game just stares back at you with lidless, reptilian eyes. It doesn’t care how you feel.” The way that I described it, back in one of the first things I wrote about the game, was that it was “about the individual; death; nihilism. The contentious design decisions, even the whole game, only starts to make sense when viewed through this lens.” Mortality and the nihilism of deadly violence is not just A Theme of the game, it is it’s only theme. When that prism refracts individual design elements; the enemy AI design and their distinctly ambivalent likeability; the incredible natural beauty; the precarity of the instruments of death; and the themes of the individual missions, with their echoes of post-colonial adventures in Africa, all of them are revealed as shorter wavelengths that make up the crystal clear light shining throughout that whole game.

FC2 was about entropy (how rare to say that any game is about ANYTHING, let alone something so abstract and important!) and carried an awareness of material entropy – fire, oil, metal and springs, gas and cartridges, rust! Blood and dust.

And after playing it for about 5 or 6 hours I want to ask a similar question: What is FC3 about? 5 to 6 hours was approximately how long it took for the theme of FC2 to emerge, so it seems fair to ask now. Except that I don’t think FC3 is ‘about’ anything, at least not in the same way that FC2 was. Possibly this is an impossible standard to live up to – perhaps FC2 was a fluke, an accident, an impossible project never to be repeated.

But why would that be the case?

“Because of the market, stupid! Because game development happens in a certain way and it means that a game with such singular focus will never be made again!”

That kind of cynicism is remarkably prevalent in the faux-enlightened corners of the enthusiast press and can even be found creeping into the occasional mainstream publication. But that argument can’t even be taken seriously once we expose the rhetorical assumption behind it – that there is something natural or inevitable about certain kinds of contemporary game development. At the risk of alienating my less philosophically inclined readers – this is pretty clearly an extension of what Mark Fisher calls ‘Capitalist Realism’.

Almost incidentally, that also presents a unique problem for games studies, in that it is an admission of the fact that extra-game forces have a greater determining power over the game than anyone who supposedly is making actual ‘game design’ decisions. When was the last time you read a paper about weapon reload time changes and their impact online that also took into account and integrated the larger, determining forces of capitalist production and workplace labour laws? Which means that design philosophy is an up-for-grabs target of critique.

So assuming that FC2 was the product of it’s own distinct design philosophy, one which I won’t attempt to name or even locate within Clint Hocking and/or his team of designers (this for pragmatic reason), I will say that it is obvious that Clint et al. had a design philosophy for FC2. So let us instead posit the existence of the design philosophy that resulted in FC2 merely for comparisons sake. Then what can we say, in comparison, about FC3’s design philosophy, by observing the results (i.e. by playing the game)?

Let’s talk specifics – this game has some really shitty racist elements. I won’t say anymore about it because it’s bleedingly obvious to the point where I could just copy+paste the phrase “Magical Negro” a hundred times and it makes my point for me. I will leave it to others to decide whether FC2 was, in it’s own way, racist or not (though I suspect it was far less so, if it even was).

An even easier comparison to make between FC2 and FC3 has to do with the amount of dehumanization the enemies undergo. In FC2 the enemies are nasty, brutish, violent mercenaries and this is an important element to their character, but they also get scared, they are terrified of dying and particularly of dying by fire. This is probably one of the most important and least remarked upon elements of FC2. In FC3, the red-shirted pirates are caricatures. Little better than cardboard cutouts from a shooting gallery, except that they also fire back. The main antagonist – Vaas – is actually the exception to this rule, which is a weird thing to deal with. He is, however, pretty much a non-entity past the intro (at least up to the point I am at in the game).

Another area where the sequel fails (at least comparatively) is in terms of the weapons and what I can only describe as their ‘feel’. This is a combination of a number of things I’m sure, including the way that FC2 stuck religiously to first-person perspective, and the way it balanced the whole combat system around an ongoing shortage of ammo and the risk/reward of picking up a ‘rusty’ gun, etc, etc. I guess it’s clear that the number of systems entailed in the combat mechanics of FC2 is quite nearly all of them, and that was itself fantastic. FC3 has the same shortage of ammo but instead of a system around the risk associated with picking up enemy weapons… FC3 involves a hunting and crafting system that feels far more artificial and grindy in comparison. At the very least these are inelegant solutions.

And similar observations can be made elsewhere – why does it take so long to loot bodies and why play an animation? Why can’t I pick up ALL the cash money piles at once, instead having to perform the same tedious “press and hold” routine for three or more piles of cash ($7… $3… $9…). So far I think what FC3 is most about (if its about anything) is what might best be described as the “general upward trend” gotten from grinding. I’ll save you the boring readings of grinding through a political-economy lens and just say that while I can often enjoy the occasional grind, I think the FC2 alternative solution of a more ‘flat’ experience (no levels, few upgrades very miserly apportioned) was a much, much better fit for a first person shooter with operatic scope and pretensions to being meaningful.

The economy reflects this issue as well, with Tristan Damen (@Unbearabledutch) pointing out on twitter today that: “FC3′s economy seems pretty busted. Only reason you need money is to buy weapon attachments.” If I had to pick one word to describe much of the crafting and economy decisions in FC3 I would describe them as arbitrary.

Lastly (for now) the decision to include civilian/native populations (which were nearly-exclusively ‘invisible’ in FC2, bringing its own set of problems, primarily around ‘othering’ the inhabitants) but without going to the trouble of making them anything more than set-dressing opens FC3 to accusations of denying indigenous agency/autonomy (passive civilians waiting for the hero to rescue them) which is a frequent problem for games generally. In fact this is one of the reasons that their very omission in FC2 seems like such an enlightened choice. Better to avoid it altogether if one can’t do it properly. Another comparison here might be apt, this time to Just Cause 2, which John Walker (and numerous others) has already usefully compared it to. But the caricatures of civilians that the Just Cause series presents (where they wander aimlessly, occasionally chat about something or other, and generally provide a backdrop feeling of a ‘lived-in-place’) only works within the context of the wider suspension of disbelief that is necessary for any Just Cause game. FC3 doesn’t go to these same ludicrous heights, nor does it pack as much into the world, with frequently big empty spaces to be trudged through (which remain unlike FC2 which turned them into an endurance test and an integral part of its meditation on the nature of safety in relation to deadly violence).

Posted in Essays, Technology, Videogames | Leave a comment

Non-human gamer

Posted in Internet, Philosophy, video | Leave a comment

Jason Wilson on twitter & academic professionalism

This is probably the best thing on twitter by anyone I can recall. I love a great number of these ideas and think there’s huge room for expansion of the core: Twitter performance as “generally improvisatory rather than studied” is fantastic, and captures something really quintessential about the service, and the idea of “risk management” seems to me an incredibly fruitful line of thinking. The way that I have been using twitter lately is certainly more “risky” than previous, but only in certain ways – I’m more exposed to the risk of being “misunderstood” now that I overuse hashtags, parrot funny memes and troll misogynists, but before about the middle of this year (or when I started following @DrTeens247?? #ThanksDocTeens) I was even more at risk of being labelled, particularly labelled as “boring” which in my estimation is far less acceptable. Especially in light of issues e.g. personal branding and stuff. I’d much rather have an undesirable outcome stemming from other people being wrong about me, than one stemming from them being right.

Posted in Internet, Philosophy, Technology | Leave a comment

Best thing I’ve read (yet) about Ke$ha

Good stuff from Robin @ its-her-factory:

Messy, irrational feminism is a white woman’s feminism. Or, to use Jack Halberstam’s terms, gaga feminism is by, for, and about white women. Neoliberalism is, in some ways about the end of a certain type or structure of white heteromasculine privilege; privilege now works differently, so that just being phenotypically white and anatomically male do not automatically, by themselves, grant access to the same kind and degree of privilege that they used to guarantee (think about Halberstam’s older analysis of The Full Monty: deindustrialization means working-class white European men no longer have guaranteed inclusion in the economy, nor do they have guaranteed protection from sexual objectification, etc.).

via Barry Saunders.

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

[talk] Flarf ‘poetry’ and the Facebook tagging algorithm

So I gave a short paper at CODE last week entitled ‘Flarf ‘poetry’ and the Facebook tagging algorithm’ and got lots of positive comments and questions afterwards. Here’s an embed of the audio, and here’s a direct download. The slides to accompany the talk can be found here.

Posted in Essays, Internet, Philosophy, Politics, Technology | Leave a comment

Žižek on Lacan on being unblockable on twitter

“Indeed, as Lacan put it: a true Master is the one who cannot ever be betrayed – the one who, even when actually betrayed, does not lose anything.” -Slavoj Žižek, ‘The Actuality of Ayn Rand’, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 3, No.2, p.225

Okay, so it’s not really about being unblockable, but I’ve been thinking about certain types of twitter/facebook/online performances that are intended to pre-empt the (re)actions or criticisms of a certain other party and I think this quote captures the essence of it nicely. When I force a troll to block me, I am “betrayed” but even though actually betrayed, I do not lose anything (in fact I reclaim from the troll the very thing he was seeking a reaction). A lot of feminist ‘discursive activism’ (Frances Shaw’s very cool term) is about setting up the conditions true Mastery, in the sense that they cannot be betrayed. Feminist bingo, Mansplaining, and all the rest of the pre-actions Shaw talks about mean that when these betrayals happen, nothing is lost.

Not sure if I can be bothered tracking down the original source for Zizek’s paraphrase, but this quote will certainly do in a pinch. More on this topic in my forthcoming article for the Fibreculture trolling issue.

Posted in Abstracts, Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

Very neat sounds

via @unefillequi

Posted in Music, video | Leave a comment

Notes and highlights from Code 2k12

The following mostly dot-point notes are what I remember to be the stand-out points from a few of the highlight talks from Code 2012, held at Swinburne this week. It’s telling that the “standouts” are just about every single paper and presentation I went to (no slight on the rest that I also attended but don’t recall). A few extra concluding thoughts at the end, but here’s a list of most of what I saw at CODE and what I remembered from it (this is all from memory, if you remember differently or want to clarify any point get in touch, my email is in the side-bar).




Rowan Wilken’s brief dalliance with Erica T. Carter

  • The story of a poetry joke/hoax/scam (site:, published “Issue 1″, giant anthology)
  • Poetry generating software, run ~1000 times, each poem attached to a fake author (many real poets, some not – Rowan had one himself and he’s no poet)
  • Most interesting thing from it (for the software authors): finding out how many poets have Google Alerts for their own names
  • Plenty of questions about the nature of authorship and language


Mel Gregg & Ned Rossiter’s Plenary panels (with v. cool overlap: similar objects of study w/ different perspectives)

  • Mel talked about “Getting Things Done (GTD)” software, and the shifts in workplace to distributed/atomised/unshackled from an office conditions. Some interesting stuff on the language of work and “freedom” that these pieces of software provide (dubious promise of freedom – freedom to be more productive for the same wage, or in more precarious environment, or “always on” maybe)
  • An extension of the same kind of thinking as in her book ‘Work’s Intimacy’ which is very interesting, and raises these issues too.
  • Ned talked about some ideas he’s working on regarding “logistical nightmares” (his title for his forthcoming book) and overviewed his desire to make a “game” to simulate logistical political interventions (strike the ports, block the containers, knock out the power, etc). Very early stages, though he had some very cool mock-up footage. (Lawson Fletcher pointed out on twitter that the footage Ned showed was largely material from existing logistics modelling/simulation software.).
  • To me whether or not his “game” (simulation?) gets made isn’t as important as the idea that he wants to make one.  (Very much in harmony with the implication of Anna Anthropy’s rise of the videogame zinesters > If “everyone” should be making games then, hell, even tenured professors like Ned should be making games!)
  • And there’s something here that syncs with Christian McCrea’s Friday morning keynote which took the position that code or programming isn’t do or die re: game making, people can and do work around it using middleware, programs like twine etc etc quite successfully.


Mitchell Whitelaw’s ‘Programmable Matter’

  • Talk was really about suggesting un-programmable matter
  • Used a bunch of incredible examples from artists who have worked with pseudo-computers, analogue computing, crystal fields, cosmic ray detection, and in one case earth current (Telluric) waves to boot up a laptop (beautiful glitch aesthetic; dirt OS)
  • Very interesting b/c of how much overlap there is between my own human/non-human stuff, and yet how completely differently it was conceptualised. i.e. through Kittler and German media theory rather than Latour & SR.
  • I was a little curious about why keep the idea of ‘computation’ for some of these when it seems like they don’t quite end up being computers so much as analogue circuits. Asked him why later, answered mainly because the artists themselves call them computers. Still a bit resistant to the plausibility of it. Zizek’s take on talking to artists is persuasive:
    • I hate this idea that if you talk to a director or an author, you will discover something amazing, some secret. What they know is in what they produce.
  • That said, each of the examples were incredible and there were lots of intriguing ideas in there.


Scott Wark’s ‘Towards a Technics of Literature’

  • All about ‘Blood Rites of the Bourgeoise’ by Stewart Home (book)
  • Half the book was written with the aim of passing through a spam filter first, then with the aim of telling the story (i.e. medium over content)
  • Scott had some other interesting ideas about the way language works in this book, but I got lost when he mentioned Derrida and others.


Tom Apperly’s ‘Random and Boring’

In my reading of his paper it operates on three levels:

  • Content level: Deliberately shitty, e.g. “Boring is a really complicated concept, as I found out last night reading the Wikipedia page” and “Lets get all classic cultural studies, all Raymond Williams, and check out the etymology of the word random”. On this level the paper sorted those who were falling asleep from those who were awake, by making it easy to mistake it for a really bad paper.
  • Mid level: Paper was critiquing or “trolling” the conference, and the conference format, & familiar paper-giving tropes. Apperly is a fantastic scholar with great ideas but because they were not “presented” properly in the format, the temptation was to nod off because (on the content level) it was very… boring. But this leads to…
  • The Inception level: Paper performed its own content. The paper did more to act/affect (albeit, at the expense of those not clued in) the power, interest and worthiness of study of both concepts, randomness and boredom. Stimulating in the audience the kind of responses that you are trying to explain in a dry and dispassionate way is a remarkably efficient presentation.
  • This was the most fun session of the whole conference, and it left me completely exhausted. It was impossible (for me, anyway) to miss the fact that there was a lot of love in the room – both from Tom, and for Tom – from many of his peers. It was a really idyllic conference scene. Never forget “Random and Boring” by Tom Apperly, 21-11-12. (Thinking about getting a 21-11-12 tattoo tbh lmao)





Emily van der Nagel on Reddit’s /Gonewild subreddit

  • A ‘consensual space’ where “nudes” are traded for Karma
  • Weird micro-distinctions between anonymity and pseudonymity across the site’s ToS and the Users.
  • Advice for posters on Reddit /gonewild: make a throwaway account (but then what point to accrue the Karma?), obscure your face, include a timestap (for authenticity), which many people write on their body.
  • Result is a list of chopped ‘body parts’ – boobs, butts, etc, with no faces attached.
  • I asked a question about whether, given that it is an explicitly non-coercive space, there are other ways of inducing women into submitting these nudes, and I can’t remember what she said in response (Emily is in the first year of her PhD, and this is a ridiculously well developed and promising project, I really want it to be done already so I can cite it in my own work, haha!)


Tully Barnett

  • “When will we get Google bodies?”
  • Of course the title was a ruse, since it was all about (e.g. Katherine Hayles) embodiment, and embodied books and some issues around digitization
  • Salient point about how those most loudly decrying the “death of the book” (and often by equating the book and reading with life) tend to be those same people for whom the book is the source of their income (their economic life)
  • Example of the early destructive ways of scanning books that Google had (chopping spine, book scanned as loose pages)
  • Gave example of Google Books Ghosts/digital scanning artifacts (See ‘The Art of Google Books’ tumblr – fingers, thumbs, etc – talk about artefacts of embodiment)
  • Also what happens when one copy of a book gets scanned, and the errata/marginalia of many individual (paper) books gets lost? Some examples of notes left by readers in margins, and some other notes that readers left responding to even earlier notes. One errata comment was talking back to the author (“Thanks Doc for this incredibly illuminating text…” very sarcastic tone)


Glen Fuller’s enthusiasm paper and the shift from print mags to online

  • Primarily about methods of ‘valorisation’ and how/why certain things get valorised (and who is doing the valorising)
  • Started with “How To” guides from the print mag tradition (“Step 1… Step 2…” etc) and compared that with blog/forum “Build threads” where posters give and receive feedback in (slow-ish) real time.
  • Glen reckons that with AR technology like google glasses, high speed net, robot surgery, etc, we’ll see a transition over to direct intervention in the build (or whatever relevant thing it is) I tweeted the phrase “Tele-buildonics” in response to this direct intervention aspect, reminiscent of ‘teledildonics’.
  • I’m interested in hearing more about this project w/r/t Time and/or acceleration (Accelerationism?) and what it says about collapsing (time) distances? (Cycles of print publishing > Forum Posting > Internet latency) but that might just be a really boring and obvious thing, idk
  • Takeaway from this one is the phrase “Good” deployed as a form of punctuation.


Melanie Swalwell

  • Talked about two main projects: Australasian Heritage Software Association & some other program I’ve forgotten the name of
  • The history of software (partic. Game) development in Australia is an important element of software-cultural history
  • Some libraries have as a legal requirement that they store/archive anything they get under (forgotten the term – “legal deposit”?) even games/software.
  • Rowan Wilkens commented that he was surprised that the State Library of Vic wasn’t a parter on the program, and offered to help make a connection
  • Christian McCrea added that they do have a small collection “It’s a cardboard box”.

An anecdote before we (Darshana, Brendan and myself) did our panel: we talked about how many words we had in our papers, Darshana had like 2800 or something, I had about 2700. Tom Apperly said 1800 was probably the ‘ideal’ amount allowing for pauses and things. D went “crap” I went real fast and skim read big chunks of mine, basically turning it into something like dot points with big bits of elaboration on-the-fly and the occasional fully written section. Worked okay for me, but in the future I will aim for less words, more dot points to allow for elaboration. Darshana ran out of time but also did a really good job of on-the-fly summarising. I think he would do well with more loosely organised, dot-pointy, off-the-cuff elaboration type stuff, since he clearly knows his stuff. Darshana’s paper had a huge amount of content and only clearly only barely scratched the surface of his project.


Darshana Jayemanne’s God Hand & Camp

  • Important element of God Hand: SERIALITY (I’m not super familiar with this term’s specifics, but basically contrast it with nonlinearity, indeterminacy, etc, etc. Not overly concerned with thinking systems and stuff I guess (but certainly not ignoring them either, probably just not idealising them as the be all and end all of games, idk. Again, v. sim to McCrea’s keynote ideas).
  • In God Hand: The characters and their design are a bit “off” (all the characters are too tall, too short, too fat, too thin > breaks typical character ideals. CAMPY)
  • Each variety of character design “leads up” or culminates in a boss that synthesises (?) all preceding designs.
  • Camp is about performance…
  • But there is no “game over” for god hand, only the player’s disengagement with the game out of boredom/frustration, etc.
  • What does God Hand’s “camp” mean for games?
  • Example of a Lets Play recording of God Hand, someone did a discourse analysis of it, in response they re-played it while reading their own (analysed?) transcript (lots of non-sync points, but occasionally does sync)
  • Question arises: “What is a performance of a game?” Is it playing it one time? What about interrupted playings? What about repeat playings? Partial/incomplete play-through? Big questions without simple answers.


Brendan Keogh

  • Dinosaur Comics as ergodic literature, i.e. Aarseth’s “non-trivial effort”
  • Dino comics draws attention to itself as a comic > the matter, stuff of the page
  • Hidden text all over the place (mouse over, “contact” page has a default email subject line)
  • Hidden overlays that change that comic (“IWouldRatherBeReadingTheLastDinosaurComicEver” = meteorite crashes into the planet and kills all the dinosaurs)
  • The cool thing about Brendans was how well it proved you could be an expert on something just by… being an expert (?). I learnt things about dinosaur comics that I didn’t know.
  • We also had a really great conversation with the session chair Steve Conway about the trickiness of ‘non-trivial’ – what even is non trivial? Great question to throw out at undergrads lol.

For my talk I’ll try put the recording and slides up online soon-ish, but I got some really great questions including a Q from Scott Wark about the nature/problems of gatekeeping in an online community built on/around Flarf, and from Jenny Kennedy a fellow grad student from Swinburne who asked a really interesting question about presence, which wasn’t really something I’d encountered or thought about before. A sense of ‘presence’ being quite important to many online communities, and one that arises when the ‘medium’ (skype, chat, comment thread, twitter, etc) disappears and the distance between people collapses. Flarf may present a problem for this idea, which is super interesting. Definitely want to read (and think) some more about how it affects those kinds of ideas.


Jason Wilson’s talk

On at the same time as ours so I didn’t see it myself, but I heard really good things. It as described to me as about “white lines” as a good starting point/object for comparing media (how do games do white lines? How about painting? Drawing? Etc etc). Sounded super interesting. Probably the most frustrating clash of the conference for me.





Christian McCrea’s keynote

  • Lots to take in, but key points for me were that the study of games isn’t limited, not enslaved to, the study of code (or even, more abstractly, systems)
  • Lot of amazing examples of the history of games and the evolution and spread of fighting game mechanics through hacked/modded SFII arcade cabinets (SFII: Rainbow edition)
  • I’ve forgotten most of the details of this one, I was out ridiculously late the night before and I saw mention of the keynote becoming a PDF at some point so look forward to that instead of my recollected notes.


Adam Muir’s Demoscene talk

  • Really cool little overview of the research into the early Australian demoscene stuff (Demoscene is all about cramming graphics/video/music/etc into tiny, tiny programs – was all about efficiency, stretching the limits of performance of older hardware, etc. Commodore 64 doing ray-traced 3D rendering that looks similar to Windows 95, for instance. A decade or more ahead of its time.)
  • Very much about using (e.g.) assembly code. Super-low-level languages of the hardware, etc, etc. 


Daryl Woodford

  • Most surprising talk of the conference, had no idea what it was about, got 100 mile p/hr stats on bookmaking online and “daytrading” in bookmaker stats gaming
  • Really amazing questions his work raises about where the line is between “cheating” and what is legitimate exploitation of a system.
  • Crosses over into the social question by talking about Eve Online as a lawless, grift and graft type space, and the slippage between the explicitterms of use and things like the way the players discuss it.
    • System Text exploit: Spamming the system discussion channel stopped people from being able to “see” the important things they needed to (other chat info? Arrival/departure of ships in certain systems?)
    • CCP didn’t “patch” the system (b/c of the way their content update system works, i.e. BIG chunk updates rather than trickles)
    • Instead CCP said “This is an exploit, you’ve been warned, anyone doing it again will be banned”
    • Players up-in-arms for CCP trying to socially enforce certain behaviour, rather than hard-code in a solution:
    • There was a quote from a player to the effects of “This is a broken mechanic!” (i.e. systemic issue, not social/behavioural issue)
    • I asked what Daryl thought about that response and the laissez faire (libertarian?) attitudes in the game.
    • Daryl suggested that because the players are (generally) smart, tech literate, they understood how trivial a “patch” it would be
      • For me, that’s super interesting (and totally right) but I can also see there being other reasons (e.g. bullshit management, bureaucratic, reasons) that would prevent it being “trivial”.


Adam Nash

  • I saw some really intriguing tweets about Adam Nash’s talk, but apart from being intrigued specifics have completely slipped my mind and when I spoke a couple times to Adam in the park afterwards I didn’t think it was fair to ask him (and the same applies to everyone) to summarise their paper just because I missed it.


And that was the last of the sessions, with the exception of the Friday afternoon Masterclasses.  I don’t really have much to say about Jussi’s masterclass, except to say that I left feeling a little less concerned about not being totally and immediately across all of German Media theory as some super-relevant tradition for my own work.

And primarily the reason for this is that Jussi said something that hinted that he has a very different perspective on the importance (for me, it’s critical) of paying attention to (or embedding other work in/around/through), say, Feminist and LGBT critiques, minority perspectives and all that sort of stuff. Not to say that he’s disinterested in that stuff at all, but rather that it’s just not his “area” (which, to be completely frank, I think is part of the problem, but then I would say that wouldn’t I so I won’t try and make some big bullshit issue out of it). I will also add that Mel Gregg’s question at the end of Jussi’s keynote also exposes this same fault-line, and was totally on point. There was a slide of Parikka’s that was an image of the women “computers” from the war era that pre-dated non-human computer computers, and Mel asked why he put it up and referred to it without really engaging with (maybe) the implications of that particular historical implication. Jussis keynote was fine, but I didn’t get a lot out of it, not being well across what media archaeology actually is, nor across German media theory.

Addendum: After talking briefly on twitter with Jussi about it, his point was that “German MT is weak on gender and feminism, one of the key blindspots of GMT.” So it was my mistake to conflate his discussion of GMT with his positions and interests, for which I apologise. But that also reinforces my satisfaction with not needing to be worried about not knowing as much German media theory as I might have been otherwise.

So that was CODE2K12. It was quite honestly one of the best and most hassle-free conferences I have ever been to, and as the above list and sumaries attests there were so many great papers. I’m really excited for the scholarship being done in Australia right now. That we have all these people around the nation (not to overlook the international crowd, just to say that I was seriously impressed at the level Australian scholarship is at, w/r/t this particular slightly niche interest) bodes really well I think. It’s a bit of a shame that so many of us only get to meet and hang out a couple of times a year, but even so, there’s a really great online sense of community here too, and that’s exciting.

I came away from Code with a renewed sense of excitement for my own research, and for the stuff other people are doing around me. That’s a mighty success.

Posted in Philosophy, Technology | Leave a comment


Not entirely sure how I’d never seen this before, p. great.

The whole idea of a ‘teaser’ music video for a song which (presumably) will get its own song is somewhat bizarre.

Just as bizarre is the fact that this clip has received something like 27 thousand dislikes. Haters gonna hate.

Posted in images, Internet, Music, video | Leave a comment