Ron Carmel, co-developer of World of Goo and co-founder of 2DBoy, came and gave a talk to students at Columbia College’s Interactive Arts and Media department as part of the on-going visiting artists lecture series the department sponsors (which Terence Hannum does a great job of organizing). He gave a short presentation, and was more interested in having an extended QA discussion for students to field questions regarding technical and business questions regarding his practice.

During his presentation Ron gave a great break down between the dramatic differences between working for “the industry” (Ron worked at EA for a while before starting 2DBoy) and working for yourself. Even though he certainly leaned/encouraged students to pursue their passions independently from larger game development shops, he gave a very fair analysis of both ends of the spectrum. I found that his perspective was invaluable for students considering getting into the game industry. A good portion of students seem eager to champion the “frontier” of the game industry, comparing it to “getting into Films” during the consumer portable camera revolution of the early 90s. Ron curbed this unsubstantiated enthusiasm very carefully and considerately, telling us the Wild West metaphor isn’t completely accurate, and that game houses are becoming more and more conservative during this economic crunch time. He also discouraged students from putting the cart before the horse, saying that a great idea for a game is always going to trump graphical/technical prowess.

Ron gave a great allegorical comparison between indie games and The Game Industry (specifically EA) as being similar to David vs Goliath. He weighed the pros and cons of these two paths and humorously considered how each one could be good for a certain person. The pros of working in the game industry were that even though larger shops compartmentalize tasks in a game (ie graphics, modeling, game-play, interface design, etc.), it allows a developer to become highly skilled in a specialized field quickly. This process also helps developers know how to work within a team, and understand how pieces of puzzles come together to form a game. They are also, obviously, reliable paychecks. Whereas in Indie Game Shops you have be able to take on any task that might confront you; everything from data management on the web site, to calibrating algorithms. Ron stressed that being an independent game developer translates into being manager of a lot of simultaneous activities. These demands can easily amount to a 60+ hour work week without stable financial compensation.

I was surprised at the amount of questions students had about the negotiations of contacts and the financial output that World of Goo generated for it’s developers. I guessed that these questions must be motivated by one of two sources: comparing starting salaries of industry work, or the institution encouraging students to inquire about the business end of starting an Indie project. I’d imagine that it was partially both, but Ron seemed to react to these questions as being strange (as would I). He answered them well and efficiently, but eventually seemed to emphasize the fact that the business of of things is something that falls into place, BUT ONLY if the game is developed with strong integrity. He reminded students that World of Goo is not a typical result in the indie game business, and that persons wanting to pursue that direction should be more focused on development and not on fiscal potential. He stipulated at one point that this is a quality that distinguishes the difference between The Industry and independent development (i.e. indie games weren’t necessarily out to make a buck).

I asked Ron about his interests in games as Art during the QA session and he responded favorably. He certainly acknowledged that the field was growing rapidly, and that there were some great projects out there that certainly addressed that issue head on (ToT for example). However, he argued that 2DBoy wasn’t an “art house,” and that they were specifically interested in making just a game, continuing to say that if others thought of WOG as Art, they wouldn’t deny it, but that it wasn’t it’s original intention. Although I waver on this point – arguing that games have implicit artistic/cultural qualities – I’m glad that Ron’s answer brings attention to the importance of games as art as a strong contributor to the indie game community.

In my Mailbox. Ideas/Concerns ::

Art as Religion, Religion as Archive, Archive as Morality, Body of Christ as Body of Work, A Novel as an Archive (Library of Babel), The Fiction of Gospel, The Fall Gerontius as The Modern Man, Gerontius as The Archive, Animality Religions, The Animal in Humanity as the Idol of an Archive, The Gospel of an Archive.

etc.

It has been several weeks since I’ve written anything for doubleunderscore, basically since I had a guest blogging stint over @ art21 (again much thanks to Kelly Shindler). I thought a good way to get back into the swing of things over here would be to have a mental recap, and perhaps flesh out other thoughts in different ways (to get a sense of where I’m at now).

Initially, I had incredible difficulty taking on the task of writing for art21. I felt partially obligated to “represent a medium” while also representing my separation, or distance from that medium (a duty I find similar to teaching sometimes, but in a good way). I had convinced myself that I had to simultaneously bring readers up to speed on vernacular and discourse (a convoluted mess of wires and terms) while also introducing artists/projects that disrupted the typical notions of those narratives. Not saying that I accomplished this, or that I chose to do so, nonetheless this feigned sense of duty was a hurdle I hadn’t expected.

This being said, I felt as though I covered a fairly wide spread of newMedia art and theory; Obsolescence, Architecture/virtuality, Games as Art, and Media Archeology were the core posts. However, because of this broad spectrum I felt as though I under-represented the way media arts are manifested in Chicago: noise/experimental AV, recursions/feedback, “the glitch,” collaboration, hacktivism, etc. This distinction is important to my own practice but also deserves recognition outside of the Midwest. By looking at work by I <3 Presets, Alex Inglizian, Patrick Lichty, Lisa Slodki, Chris Riley, amongst many many others, there is a distinct interplay of ideas and concerns. Although Andrew Hicks has curated a Chicago-specific video screening based on issues of the Body (Scroll down for Andrew’s Statement), I attribute this connection between makers as something I discussed heavily in the Art21 guest blog: play.

Play has emerged in Chicago both out of utility and necessity (which could/should be viewed as being mutually implicated/influenced). The improvisational and collaborative nature of experimental AV, Film, and Video work in this city highlight a desire to work outside of traditional paradigms. A testament to this is the amazing amount of independent, non-commerical, artists-run galleries/project spaces/initiatives in Chicago. Although it can be viewed that the constant flux of spaces opening and closing is an example of the instability of Chicago’s art community, I’d argue the reverse. Although spaces come and go, and projects often times get shut down right when they start to really gain steam, the importance is that the community continues on to explore different ways of showing/sharing/communicating and interacting with their immediate community and the larger public. This flexibility enables the newMedia community to explore creativity in multiple venues, ranging from bedrooms to the MCA.

Although I didn’t get too much of a chance to explore these aspects of Chicago based newMedia work on the art21 blog, I’ll continue that initiative here.