#i had quite a similar internal response to reading those comments myself honestly! i just chose not to post about them

[kaleidescopeghost]

Hey with the stuff on womanism, why do you think those like 2-3 white folks were say hating? On the black community, from what I saw they saw a word they never read before and were confused. Instead of educating people told them to choke and die which I don’t think helped anyone out

Well, I don't think those folks were intentionally hating on specifically the Black community as a whole, but they were definitely hating on the term Womanism (simply for,, sounding Black and being a term they never heard before, even if they didn't realize that was Why the term sounded so strange and unnecessary to them) ((probably bc they don't ever actually Talk to Black people tbh)).

However, that being said, it was Not just a case of innocent ignorance, they weren't Just Confused, they were incredibly rude and that's a Major distinction that needs to be acknowledged--Even the people who looked it up on a very surface level immediately agreed with the people who had No clue what it was Stupid and basically pointless, which was just ignorant and rude even when read with good faith. They looked at this term that wasn't theirs, wasn't even About them, and started piling up on this one Black person for calling them out on their aggressive and willfully ignorant behavior (one of those people being an open LGBTQIA+ exclusionist who has a long ass post with the phrase "inclusion is harmful" in it and the Context being they believe the queer community should be, well. Just LGBT, and they consider Q+ folk to be just,, inherently invalid which is Just nasty behavior that I want to mention because it matters who says what and what they believe in conversations like these).

Frankly, I don't mind educating. I'm very used to it and I'm good at what I do-- but this Black person showed discomfort and distress because these folks were just. Attacking a movement that is Important To Black People and Other People Of Color, and they were met with "Just Educate These Adults!!!" "Do you get mad when Literal Children don't know things?? Do you tell them to die when they have Questions???" "People don't know keywords to search for!!" And pushing all this blame for the situation on this person which wasn't fair because truthfully we live in the Internet age and marginalized communities don't Owe anyone a calm, polite, collected, gentle education when those same people are calling shit they don't even understand stupid just for existing, especially when it's culturally relevant, and we're Especially allowed to get mad about the way these people can just Say Whatever and immediately get backed up when they were just incredibly rude for no reason-- we're allowed to get rude back too! :') in all honesty, it was the call out and the disapproval that Was the education ( the lesson being What They Said Was Bad! And that they needed to go give themselves some reeducation bc their ignorance is leading them to say harmful things). It can be a tough pill to swallow, especially when you don't know the gravity of what you're even saying and then being met with harsh rejection, but the only reason that happened was because these folks looked at "Feminism But Black Inclusive" and immediately was like "this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard or seen" 😭 and they Swarmed and Ganged Up On the first person who called them out. Not okay behavior. We're not going to be nice to people who can't A.) genuinely just look things up. If you look up Womanism, you'll see your search engine literally Gives You key terms to help you in your research. And B.) be open minded and calm when hearing Black terms.

We just can't constantly sacrifice our health for these people, because it is genuinely a lot of work and pressure we're expected to just Offer Up at any time simply Because we are Black and just magically know everything and are now also expected to be spokespeople for our entire race which is unfair.

So yeah, I don't think it was completely unfair that this Black person was mad. They used ways of expressing that in a way I wouldn't have, but I'm very much against the idea that Black people need to be Perfect, Articulate, and Polite to people who are aggressors and who speak ignorance. It might not seem like it to someone who doesn't know what Womanism is, but those people dropped the ball in a Major Way. You can't just trigger marginalized people like that and expect a kind, specifically catered education from strangers just because You don't know something-- sometimes you say something fucked up and people yell at you and everybody should be able to learn from their mistakes in these scenarios.

(also, it could be the autism, but they weren't telling people explicitly to die :') just to choke lol in my mind people can survive choking lol + the whole reason it was said was to be like "you might as well be physically unable to speak because I don't care what you have to say here". Like I said, not the way I choose to express myself personally, but I get why it happened and I don't think they deserve crucifixion about it and I Definitely don't think their anger invalidates them at all.)

TLDR:

BIPOC, Especially Black people do not owe anybody an education. We're just people and it's really strange we're expected to be polite teachers in the face of ignorance and aggression.

Those people were willfully ignorant, called the wrong thing stupid, and then got yelled at by people who belong to a marginalized demographic where that word really matters to them. It's not nice, but it is fair.

It shouldn't be our cross to bear, to educate people who act like this, simply because we were born Black or otherwise POC. Honestly, a lot of the stuff we know, we know because we had to educate ourselves using the same internet we're asking them to use but during our time, there were way less resources. To us, it very much is a matter of needing these people to Want to put in their Own work on their Own time, using the resources that already exist. There's loads of BIPOC authors, journalists, and creators who talk loads about this stuff, and the learning process is kind of like math in the way you can't always just be given information plain and simple on a silver plate without a Lot of other context. Which is also why we have such an emphasis on educating yourself. All you gotta do, essentially, is check Who is writing what you're reading and cross reference different material to make sure you're getting a well rounded understanding of what the general consensus of the community is. I literally used a Britannica article to brush up on my knowledge before posting and it wasn't hard to find :") the article wasn't even written by a Black Person from what I can gather.

This might not be the answer you want, but I trust you to see how these people expecting an education from random Black folk They upset is presumptuous and a bit entitled. She didn't owe anybody any sort of gentleness in this situation, even if she said some mean stuff. It wasn't nice, but neither were they and the whole situation could've been avoided by Them looking things up for themselves before calling something that was heavily implied to be influenced by race stupid. It sucks for people who just Don't Know Shit, but BIPOC aren't obligated to be helpful to people who Already aren't putting in the work.

But the good thing is that there Are loads of preexisting resources from willing professionals from all across the world and all across time who are respected that teach you everything you need to know that are Free and At y'all's finger tips. Y'all just gotta look. The reason we're oftentimes so frustrated is because We also did the same research because we cared about learning this stuff, so we Know if these people cared, they'd do the same thing.

Okay! Very long post lol but I'm done now! I am still open to further questions and clarification but I hope this was helpful. We're all just people in the world, and we're all just learning, but it's good to practice just. Being polite and looking before you leap 😅 because the initial thing that started this whole mess was people saying some really rude stuff about something that means a Lot to us culturally as Black people.

[mewhaku]

So I’m thinking about Gedo Senki (Tales from Earthsea) from Goro Miyazaki again. And honestly, it still upsets me that Goro worked on it and not his father. I am not the biggest fan of Ponyo... and I feel like this was the last shot at Le Guin ever allowing someone to adapt any of the Earthsea stories.

This is gonna be a short essay not gonna lie. 

But, at the same time- reading the Director Blog entries from Goro, I can’t help but feel a bit of wistfulness at what he tried to make. He DID read the books, and even identified with them as per his blog entries... but a lot of this film also involved his conflicted relationship with his father, Hayao Miyazaki. But Goro still did want to express the “heart” of the books. (I’m actually a huge fan of this track from the film by the by...)

Hayao Miyazaki of course was also hugely inspired by Le Guin’s novels... which speaks to how a lot of the relationships between characters and their battles develop in his films. As in, the original trilogy of Le Guin novels at least. 

For more musing on specific entries, feel free to hit read more. 

Everything I quote here is from Goro’s entries, by the by.

1st entry: “When considering current fantasies, something like: "A story of gaining magical powers and adventuring in a fantasy world" is the first image that bobs up. But is that really the true nature of fantasy? This is the question in my mind.For instance, even a plain, everyday, question such as: "Why are sunsets so beautiful?" contains the mystery of existence and that is what I think fantasy is.”

I really honestly think that’s a great way to talk about some of the mystery of the Earthsea series. 

He starts to talk about some of his thoughts regarding Hayao, his father, here.  The idea of “a life of doing” vs “a life of being”-- the fact that he never tried to animate because of his father’s status, essentially. 

“"A life of doing" is a life with a goal that one tries to achieve. The impetus may be all kinds of things, ranging from winning riches and/or fame to moving people.By contrast, "a life of being" is, whether for ones own sake, or that of others, not living with some great ambition, but living content with the activity of ones daily life.“

Speaking on Therru’s (song linked to her name)  voice actor. I remember listening to that song on the first trailer for the film and being struck by the beauty of it- I hadn’t read any Earthsea books at this point, and I still think the song and its lyrics speak to something... meaningful. To say the least.

Early on, Le Guin’s son Theo also saw some of the film too:

“I wrote this before, but the reason I'm here directing this animated film, is because of the attraction of original "Earthsea" series. That is why I'm careful to preserve the important things that Ms. Le Guin tried to depict in the Earthsea series. If I treat those carelessly I wind up with nothing.But obviously the mediums of print and film are different, so I can't just turn the books straight into a movie. If I made a film that exactly followed the text of the books, I wouldn't be able to depict the real heart of the Earthsea stories. How do I go about turning the important parts of the original Earthsea works into images? That is the problem that has been in my head all the time from the moment I started making this movie until now.This was the first time I had seen Theo in a long while. It made me resolve afresh to make something that would not bring shame to the name of Earthsea.“

He talks a bit more about his father again upon hearing comments like, “this really looks like a Miyazaki anime”. 

You know I never knew Goro’s mother and Hayao’s wife was an animator. There’s something strikingly sad at how Goro wrote that entry, honestly. Apparently his mother commonly said “don’t be an animator”. Goro wanted to learn about his father through the films his father made. 

In any case- back to the reasoning of the film... I’ve read Shuna’s Journey actually, and quite enjoyed it. “A boy leaves his country on a journey, he meets a great mage, and a girl, through which he is changed. This plot was the basis for the current story.”

But there was no other girl than Therru, of course... I think this is where things get changed. Shuna’s Journey has a similar-esque line of thinking, and also provides a general concept for Princess Mononoke/Nausicaa ideas. 

Again here tumult internally at being compared to his father’s works. 

Fast forward- film is done, and he worries about being asked to explain why he changed the story. 

His father says the ‘film was made honestly’. And so it was good. 

Le Guin sees the film and says:

“She answered briefly. "It is not my book. It is your film. It is a good film."I think that there were really a lot more things she wanted to say, but even so, she said these words to me with a smile.I thought, I want to accept these short words with simple heartfelt gratitude.To Ms LeGuin and to Theo, who has acted as our intermediary this whole time, I really want to say thank you very much.“

Now her response on her own site...

I remembered that when I originally read Goro’s entries I found a lot of the earlier postings interesting- he was musing a lot on what was going on between Ged and Ogion in the first novel. But I am sad knowing that he didn’t choose to focus on that work... I’ll be the first to say that The Farthest Shore is my favorite Earthsea novel. I just wonder why he, having been so inspired and impacted by A Wizard of Earthsea, that the plan changed so radically. 

I know, a heroine- but we didn’t get Tenar in her Tombs of Atuan. We get Therru, aged up, with a burned face and mysterious connection to dragons. Arren is young too, and looks up to Ged like he does in the books, but is also fighting his demons more internally- and looks to Therru for hope, rather than the scene between Ged and Arren in TFS. Is it still a similar scene...? Yes, but it has a much different feel. Cob is not the threat he is in TFS. There is no real dry land. 

But again, it seems Goro was trying to grasp at themes he resonated with. Feelings of fighting against oneself, finding a way to go outside of oneself, and look towards others with acceptance. He worried about what might make others happy a bit too much... sometimes. 

To speak on Le Guin’s response:

“Much of it was exciting. The excitement was maintained by violence, to a degree that I find deeply untrue to the spirit of the books.

Much of it was, I thought, incoherent. This may be because I kept trying to find and follow the story of my books while watching an entirely different story, confusingly enacted by people with the same names as in my story, but with entirely different temperaments, histories, and destinies.”

Which I would agree with, by the by. Violence does not need to be the main drive, and honestly Hayao’s films don’t usually use violence in that way either.

“The moral sense of the books becomes confused in the film. For example: Arren's murder of his father in the film is unmotivated, arbitrary: the explanation of it as committed by a dark shadow or alter-ego comes late, and is not convincing. Why is the boy split in two? We have no clue. The idea is taken from A Wizard of Earthsea, but in that book we know how Ged came to have a shadow following him, and we know why, and in the end, we know who that shadow is. The darkness within us can't be done away with by swinging a magic sword.“

Again, almost a mash of things Goro struggled to express coming across as muddled. He tried to express clear themes, but came out as half-truths.

With her closing statements:

“Though I think the dragons of my Earthsea are more beautiful, I admire the noble way Goro's dragons fold their wings. The animals of his imagination are seen with much tenderness — I liked the horse-llama's expressive ears. I very much liked the scenes of plowing, drawing water, stabling the animals, and so on, which give the film an earthy and practical calmness — a wise change of pace from constant conflict and "action". In them, at least, I recognised my Earthsea.“ 

I would also agree with that. I watch the film again for those pieces of animation. 

There is a response from the other side- a fan’s side here on Le Guin’s website, or at least a correspondent from a Japanese fan-base of the Earthsea series as a whole. 

It is an interesting divide. Considering I saw the film first, I have some tender feelings for it, but occasionally I get very upset at knowing there won’t be a ‘better’ adaptation. 

I try to remind myself of Goro’s introspections, the feelings surrounding this film, the color-- the landscapes, animals, and music. It puts me more at ease. For whatever reason. It isn’t good to respond with hostility to a different opinion, at least.

[legalseat]

Bringing the Criminal Law of States to Winnipeg: A report on Robson Hall's Recent Nuclear Conference

Robson Hall - An Intellectual Hot Spot in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Scholarship

Winnipeg recently played host to an important international academic conference:

Regional Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Controls, Defence and Diplomacy.

The Conference ran from September 20 – 21 at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. It was co-hosted by the University of Manitoba’s Law Facultyand the

Committee on Nuclear Weapons, Non-Proliferation and Contemporary International lawof the International Law Association

, in conjunction with the Round Table Strategic Forum on Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law.

Organized and chaired by Robson Hall’s own Dean,Dr. Jonathan Black-Branch, and by Dr. Dieter Fleck, the conference invited academics, professionals and students to participate in panels discussing issues relating to nuclear technologies, disarmament and non-proliferation. I had the privilege of participating in the conference myself, alongside three of my fellow Robson Hall students, and can say with certainty that it was both an exciting and meaningful experience.

The Criminal Law of States

What does this conference have to with criminal law, after all, issues of nuclear weapons reside, ostensibly, in the realm of international law? This is Robson Crim after all, a blawg dedicated to criminal law topics. However, much of international law, especially as it relates to issues of nuclear weapons and defence policy, could be considered the criminal law of states. The law surrounding issues such as the use of force, warfare, and individual or collective self-defence in particular can be likened to the criminal law prohibiting and strictly regulating violence.

Nuclear weapons are unique: they have the capacity to destroy civilizations, our species and the world itself. The resolution of the legal issues surrounding these potentially apocalyptic devices should be of the utmost importance. There can be no criminal law system if there is no society.

The Scope of the Presentations: Opposing Views Welcomed

The Conference consisted of five panels. Each panel included three or four panelists, who gave individual presentations before taking questions and comments. The panelists presented on a wide array of topics. There were many presentations on the legal aspects of nuclear weapons and associated defence strategies, and on treaties such as the Non-Proliferation Treatyor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Other presentations went in very different and interesting directions. One panelist offered a variety of potential deals for settling the sanctions issue between Iran and the US. Another presented on environmental assessment issues relating to Canada’s domestic nuclear power industry. There was even a presentation on financial institutions and the monetary side of nuclear proliferation.

As diverse as the presentation topics were the people in attendance. There was an immigration lawyer from Florida, an academic from Spain; there were several German scholars. At one point a presentation was given from South Africa via Skype. Some even came from as far afield as Australia and New Zealand. The common denominator was their interest in nuclear issues. This was often the focus of presenters’ research or careers. Many also brought great passion with them. Dr. Black-Branch said, at one point, that he considered his work towards nuclear disarmament to be the most important of his life. He gave a very impactful panel presentation which included disturbing images of victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, underscoring his arguments for the need to disarm by highlighting the human price.

An equally passionate response was made to this by a European defence official (attending in a personal capacity, not an official one) who supported nuclear deterrence. While Dr. Black-Branch reminded everyone about the very real horrors that nuclear weapons can inflict if used, the official spoke to the real suffering of conventional war which nuclear deterrence helps to avert. The official grew up under the threat of Soviet invasion, which arguably was held back only by the threat of the Bomb. Dr. Black-Branch later told me that this opposing view was one of the reasons that he had made sure to invite the official; it was important to him, and to the integrity of the Conference, that both sides of the issue were voiced and considered.

This back and forth was often reflected in the question periods following other panels. Questioning was at times intense: there were several discussions between panelists and audience members, where ideas were challenged, challenges were responded to, and further challenges made. All of it was done with absolute respect, however. I think perhaps my favourite part of the conference was being grilled on my own presentation by several of the attending experts. They asked difficult questions, challenging us students just as they challenged each other. While this might have been intimidating, I appreciated it greatly, as it was a mark of respect. In treating me and the other students as they treated each other, these experts were indicating that we were equals in their eyes. They were never dismissive or condescending: it was all about academic rigour. I had the opportunity to meet and speak with many of these individuals on breaks and after the conference had concluded. I can honestly say that I enjoyed meeting every one of them.

Introducing: The Winnipeg Declaration

The culmination of the Conference was the first drafting of a legal document: the Winnipeg Declaration. Perfecting of the document is ongoing; however all of us who remained at the Conference’s conclusion took part in its creation. It is the intention of Drs. Black-Branch and Fleck to present this document to the governments of the world, in the hopes of getting them to sign it and commit to its precepts. The Winnipeg Declaration has thirteen pillars, corresponding to the thirteen phases of the moon that were described in a blessing that was given by an Indigenous Elder at the outset of the Conference. It asks states to recognize that all should be able to live free from fear of nuclear weapons, to undertake disarmament, to take responsibility for and aid those suffering as a result of nuclear technologies, and more. I have my doubts about the efficacy of the document. There have been similar declarations made in the past, and all have been ignored by the nuclear powers. However, I also do not think that the Winnipeg Declaration is about succeeding as a legal document. It is about adding the voices of its contributors to the discussion. It is about making a gesture, indicating that there are many out there who are no longer satisfied with the status quo, and who are willing to challenge it. Time will tell.

An Annual Event: Participants Welcomed

For academics and those working in nuclear-related fields, the conference offered an opportunity to bring their ideas before like-minded and knowledgeable peers capable of testing them. For students, it offered an opportunity to participate in and be exposed to a rigorous academic environment. Drs. Black-Branch and Fleck were keen throughout to provide panelists the opportunity to contribute to a book that they are writing which, for students especially, is a great opportunity in and of itself. Even for the layperson, who may not know much about nuclear issues at all, this conference provided a chance to learn about this topic and engage with it critically. This is important because nuclear technology, whether weaponize or for peaceful purposes, affects the entire world and everyone in it. These are issues that everyone has a stake in. This is an opportunity for everyone to get involved.

This conference was held last year, and I am quite confident that it will be held again next year as well. I would encourage anyone reading this to look into it, either as a participant or attendee. The problems with which the Regional Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament conference grapples are arguably some of the most important in the world. The Conference is a place where everyone can come to offer their views on these problems, and where they can learn about and engage with them.

Bringing the Criminal Law of States to Winnipeg: A report on Robson Hall's Recent Nuclear Conference published first on https://divorcelawyermumbai.tumblr.com/

[nofomoartworld]

Medusa FPS, the game that perverts the logic and goals of the FPS genre

Karolina Sobecka, Medusa FPS (caption from the video game)

The military is increasingly using smart robotic weapon systems that distribute agency between a team of men, an algorithm and a machine. This type of weapon means that any sense of responsibility and accountability is shared and thus diluted. If that were not disturbing enough, personal weapons used by civilians are now being fitted with similar ‘smart’ technology. The Tracking Point Rifle, for example, won’t allow you to pull the trigger until it has been pointed in exactly the right place. It is an extremely precise and sophisticate piece of machinery that takes into account dozens of variables, including wind, shake and distance to the target. The weapon also comes with a wifi transmitter to stream live video and audio to a nearby iPad. Every shot is recorded so it can be posted to YouTube or Facebook should you wish to.

Karolina Sobecka‘s Medusa FPS is directly inspired by these semi-autonomous and autonomous weapons. In her First Person Shooter game, the player uses an AI-assisted gun that guides his or her hand to aim more effectively and fires when a ‘target’ enters its field of view. Which of course seems to wipe out much of the thrill of playing a FPS game. Medusa FPS, however, reverses the usual logic and goals of FPS games. The challenge for the player here is to fight against his or her own in-game character and prevent it from shooting anyone. They cannot drop the weapon nor stop it from firing, but they can obstruct it (and the gun’s) vision.

Medusa FPS hinges on the conflict created between the player and her in-game character. Virtual environments have allowed us to create and play out multiple personas, and thus allow for potentially creating internal dialog between those. The POV perspective used by the game convention helps to set up such a confrontation here. The vision is shared between the player and the character, and is a place of contention of either’s agency.

Medusa FPS is part of Monsters of the Machine, a show that explores the ‘unintended and dramatic consequences’ that technology can have for the world. The exhibition was curated by Furtherfield.org co-director Marc Garrett and it features a few of my favourite artists. One of them is Karolina Sobecka and i thought i’d take the excuse of the Laboral show to get in touch with her and have her talk about the game:

Exhibition view at Laboral. Photo by Marcos Morilla

Hi Karolina! i must admit that i was totally shocked and horrified when i read the full description of the conceptual and technological background of the game. I had no idea that personal weapons could become so dangerously sophisticated. The possibility of sharing the shootings on social platforms is particularly chilling. How do you ensure that people who come in the gallery and play the game actually engage with the issues rather than just enjoy it as a new gaming challenge?

I was pretty surprised when I learned about the ‘precision-guided’ personal weapons too. The TrackingPoint rifle really just sounds like a grotesque exaggeration of the trends in ‘smart’ things and in the need for experience to be dramatized by social media. And yes, the live streaming of the ‘shot view’ is probably its most disturbing feature, partly because you can see the profit logic in this design. This really quickly becomes also a question of responsibility of online media that benefits from this kind of material. Incidentally, we now already have a discussion of how the presence of social media might be encouraging people to create a certain reality on the ground thanks to the recent murders that were being streamed or posted on Facebook.

Fortunately, it looks like the TrackingPoint startup is not doing great. Apparently the guns, besides being very expensive, ‘take the fun out of hunting.’ And also, the rifle has already been hacked (to remotely change the target), so at least it serves to illuminate some of the vulnerabilities of privately owned networked weapons.

A view through the scope of the Tracking Point TP750. Photo: Greg Kahn for WIRED

My project was actually inspired not by TrackingPoint but by reading Mark Dorrian’s essay ‘Drone Semiosis’ about the autonomous weapons systems (such as Gorgon Stare), which, as he writes ‘conflate the act of seeing and killing.’ I think it demonstrates the violence of surveillance in general, that violence is implicit in the act of targeting. The other really complicated issue Dorrian writes about is the distribution of the responsibility for killing between several human and non-human actors. That’s really interesting and ideally my project can compel people to think about it.

The game is only presented in art galleries, so I think the context encourages the viewer to reflect on it as a critical material. The game itself is quite simple, and the metaphor – which is the formal device – is encountered right away. The design is centered around this dissonance between what you expect and what you experience when you first start playing. I hope that just the initial moment of having to re-calibrate – to stop and think about one’s action, is enough of an interruption of the habit to cause some reflection.

Karolina Sobecka, Medusa FPS (caption from the video game)

And where do you think that these ‘monsters in the machine’ are going to lead society? How far can we push the limits of what is ethically and socially acceptable?

On one hand this monster could be be the traces of the humans that made it, their biases and agendas buried in the design of the system, while the actual human with his critical reflection, re-negotiation and re-evaluation has been de-coupled from it. This might be the hidden monstrosity, but what I think actually produces a sense of threat is the uncertainty, apprehension towards the unknown. The gamble is bigger in the context of a global networked society, which means that risks associated with technologies can have a more far-reaching impact.

AI making decisions that are moral in nature, and act on them is a complicated question. I think this is something we will have to grapple with for some time – it takes time for people to be exposed to this reality to think about what consequences it might have, see examples of how it unfolds, and develop narratives of what’s acceptable and what isn’t. I think the drones are a good example to think through the ethics of integrating decision-making software into social systems, because when harm is done the stakes are so high – someone is killed. It might be even more difficult to analyze systems when the effects, and who benefits or is harmed, might be more subtle or just invisible. Weapons are ostensibly violent but perhaps a more insidious kind of violence can be done as a result of entrenching a technology that exploits people under a banner of freedom or economic independence.

But I tend to agree with the standard answer to this question – that the technology develops first and then our ethics have to try to keep up, so it is important that we analyze, reframe and hack technology from the very beginning of its development, to constantly apply the critical lens to it, and to keep in check the potential of the harmful consequences.

And have you noticed that people engage and react differently to Medusa FPS depending on whether they are avid players of FPS games or gallery visitors who are interested in the concept but less used to the mechanic and logic of FPS games?

I don’t really have an answer to this. I haven’t gotten a chance to see how people interact with this in a gallery. And honestly (and this might sound antithetical to game designers) I am more interested in the concept than the game playing myself – I love designing interactive systems, but I’m a really bad player.

Karolina Sobecka, Medusa FPS (caption from the video game)

I don’t know if this is relevant but looking at screenshots from the game and reading your text, there seem to be a strong feminine presence in the game. In the role of the potential victim of a bullet but also in the way you describe the work, using ‘she’ where one might have expected a ‘they’ or even a ‘he’. for example: “The player cannot drop the weapon or stop it from firing, but she can obstruct her (and the gun’s) vision.” Is this something you’d like to comment on? Is this a feminist statement?

I used an equal number of male and female characters but all of them are just plain people models rather than soldiers or fighters, which might contribute to this impression of ‘feminine’ presence. The masculinity of the men is not exaggerated as it would be in standard FPS characters. It wasn’t meant as an overt feminist statement. It’s just shifting what the standard of FPS is in terms of genre: where the enemies are predefined and unambiguous, including how they look and act.

Could you describe how the interaction unfolds? What the player has to do that will enable him/her to obstruct the gun vision and shoot as few people as possible?

The player has to hide within the building structures or stay away from anybody else. The people in the scene simply walk around the world. When they are shot at, they start running away or trying to attend to the ones who were shot. They actually are controlled by a modified ‘AI’ script, so their behavior is the result of several simple rules. They run away to a safe distance and then resume their wandering behavior. They are curious (so if the player is in their field of vision they’ll walk to approach him), and sometimes attracted to being in a group. The term AI in games that connotes autonomous behavior of an agent (usually enemy) has been around for a long time, but it usually is just a very simple behavior based on a few rules. Now that Artificial Intelligence is starting to control devices and agents in our daily lives it might be interesting to look at those really simple standard behaviors.

The player doesn’t get much chance to watch the pattern of their behavior. There’s an AI script on the weapon as well – which exaggerates ‘guided aiming.’ I have heard that in some games weapons can be in fact scripted in a similar but more subtle way, making the player a more effective shooter. In my game if there’s a person within the field of view, the weapon will rotate to get them in the crosshairs – and when they are in the crosshairs, it will fire. Player’s control will override any movement by the weapon but the moment he or she stops exerting active control, the weapon will take over do its automatic guiding. In practice this looks like jerking the gun back and forth. It’s a strange interaction because it doesn’t correspond do anything in physical reality. The immersive illusion of the game rests mostly in the POW camera. But this wrestling of control happens with the keyboard.

Could you also explain the choices you made while designing the visual universe of the game? Why is is so cold and clean?

I’ve been using this palette and character design for some time, it’s in a way just a pragmatic choice – since I’m interested in the rules of the game, rather than building an immersive world, the visual quality should support that. It’s a model rather than an illustration or a narrative, and this design is a bare-bones model, where everything that I’m not trying to point to is at a default value.

Thanks Karolina!

Medusa FPS is part of the exhibition Monsters of the Machine, curated by Marc Garrett, co-director of Furtherfield.org. The show remains open until 31st August 2017 at Laboral Centro de Arte y Creación Industrial in Gijón.

from We Make Money Not Art http://ift.tt/2pwvU8b via IFTTT