quick devlog post retrieved from a tumblr post of 23 May 2012 + update

Started this yesterday – current version 0.0.4 – scrolling, player can move, jump (and jump over the enemies), fall, get bonus cup of lifes (+1 life ; bonus = cup of red thing), there’s basic collision with ennemies, player loses one life when meeting an enemy, the first type of enemy (“squid”) spawns every X seconds/frames. TODO next: first class of “bullets”, first weapon will be a bomb for Prinny, planted or thrown. Then later adding the other types of ennemies. And things, other things, way later.

There will be some cleaning / resizing / etc of sprites to do, also.

[28 may 2012:

now actually on version 0.0.7, hoping for a 0.1 soon to be able to let one or two people beginning to test and report on gameplay and maybe help me for balance and future ideas.

0.0.7 has collision the player ability to drop bombs, bombs explosions & collision between bombs exploding and player and ennemies, a second (loose) type of ennemy (several other sprites wait for being added, and then tweaked for different type of ennemies possibilities), semi place holder blue laser sprites needing animation in place of the red blocks below acting as a death trap than opens and closes every five seconds and can kill everyone who fall on it, new sprite for Squid being grilled on the laser death trap and one killed sprite for the second ennemy, a little basic skull. added a Pause state, and a pause screen when you lose a new life before starting a new round, a very basic game over static screen. Next thing to do, continue and finish the spawning & managing of bonus items/etc… and a lot of under the hood things (better animation management, OO/ classes organization etc).]

libertĂ©… #Baudrillard

François de L’Yvonnet : Nous retrouvons Lichtenberg, que vous aimez Ă  citer, la libertĂ© reste, parce qu’elle est l’idĂ©e la plus facile


Jean Baudrillard : C’est la plus facile, la plus acceptable, Ă  partir du moment oĂč elle est donnĂ©e, car avant, elle ne se posait pas. Mais c’est une autre question de savoir comment surgit cette libertĂ©. C’est un mystĂšre
 Il dit aussi : ” Au fond, soyons clairs, l’homme n’est pas un homme libre, ce dĂ©cret-lĂ , n’existe nulle part. L’homme n’est pas libre, mais il ne peut pas ou ne veut pas s’en rendre compte, car cela demande une telle ascĂšce intellectuelle. Donc la libertĂ© a toutes les chances de durer indĂ©finiment.” Cette solution facile n’est remise en cause, aujourd’hui, que par une solution encore plus facile, qui est un dĂ©sistĂ©ment de la libertĂ© d’une espĂšce de destination numĂ©rique, de ventilation dans des opĂ©rations de programmation, d’organigrammes
 Ce nouvel opĂ©rateur fait bon marchĂ© dans sa libertĂ©. Lichtenberg dit aussi : “DĂ©velopper la libertĂ©, la volontĂ©, dans le sens oĂč on l’entend le plus gĂ©nĂ©ralement aujourd’hui, comme une sorte d’impĂ©ratif catĂ©gorique, c’est instituer un onziĂšme commandement qui annule tous les autres.” C’est trĂšs bien pensé  Avec la libertĂ©, la source de tous les commandements est intĂ©riorisĂ©e, c’est la source du malheur absolu, on est responsable de tout ! Il y a quelques rĂ©ticences aujourd’hui devant ce mode d’emploi de la libertĂ©, parce qu’on en entrevoit un certain nombre de consĂ©quences. C’est encore Lichtenberg, je crois, qui dit que l’usage caractĂ©ristique de la libertĂ©, c’est l’abus qu’on peut en faire. La preuver que quelque chose est en jeu, c’est qu’on peut l’éxcĂ©der, et en faire le sacrifice.

Revenons Ă  la proposition du don et du contre-don. La libertĂ© est une sorte de don, de cadeau qui vous est fait. L’acception actuelle du terme comporte l’idĂ©e qu’on peut tout faire et tout avoir, tout consommer, se transformer en n’importe qui. Il n’y a donc plus de possibilitĂ©s de contre-don. Être libĂ©rĂ© ne va pas sans crĂ©er des problĂšmes. Ainsi quand on a libĂ©rĂ© les esclaves, tous ne l’ont pas nĂ©cessairement acceptĂ©, certains se sont mĂȘme rĂ©voltĂ©s contre cet affranchissement ! On ne veut plus poser ce problĂšme-là : l’idĂ©e reçu est que la libertĂ© est un don pur. Y compris Ă  la naissance, comme l’a montrĂ© un procĂšs rĂ©cent, oĂč il est apparu qu’un enfant devrait ĂȘtre libre de naĂźtre ou de ne pas naĂźtre. La libĂ©ration est un systĂšme de dĂ©rĂ©gulation exponentielle qui aboutit nĂ©cessairement Ă  une monstruositĂ©, et cela parce qu’on a Ă©liminĂ© la possibilitĂ© du mal, d’une rĂ©versibilitĂ©, d’un duel, d’une rĂ©ponse possible, et donc d’une vĂ©ritable responsabilitĂ©. Si on ne peut pas rĂ©pondre Ă  la libertĂ©, y sacrifier en quelque sorte, on finit pas ĂȘtre axphyxiĂ© par sa propre libertĂ©. CoupĂ©es d’un instance duelle, toutes les choses ayant perdu leur rĂ©fĂ©rence sont destinĂ©es Ă  se reproduire indĂ©finiment. Le clone, c’est l’ĂȘtre obtenu lorsqu’il est coupĂ© de sa propre rĂ©fĂ©rence humaine. Il est comme “schizophrĂ©nisĂ©â€, “libĂ©rĂ©â€ de son propre original, il ne peut que se rĂ©pĂ©ter indĂ©finiment. La libertĂ© est devenue la libĂ©ration, c’est-Ă -dire un processus quasi obsessionnel de rĂ©pĂ©tition illimitĂ©e et dĂ©mesurĂ©e. La mesure, elle, est dans un rapport duel aux choses, dans un rapport d’altĂ©ritĂ©.

Le monde du virtuel est l’aboutissement du processus de liberté : la libertĂ© ne devient mĂȘme plus visible, s’étant abolie dans son accomplissement dĂ©finitif. On tente, aujourd’hui, de conjurer cela, de retrouver de nouvelles contraintes, des limites morales Ă  la possibilitĂ© de tout faire
 On veut intĂ©grer Ă  la libĂ©ration une critique humaniste de la libertĂ©, mais c’est sans espoir.

Cela dit, demeure entier le mystĂšre : comment se fait-il que ce phĂ©nomĂšne soit apparu, se soit dĂ©veloppĂ© avec une telle intensitĂ©, au point qu’on ne peut plus procĂ©der aujourd’hui Ă  l’ablation, Ă  l’amputation mentale de cette notion de liberté ?

Pourtant si on regarde du cĂŽtĂ© de l’histoire, du cĂŽtĂ© des institutions, on voit comment la libertĂ© se corrige par une instense servitude volontaire, que l’une et l’autre fonctionnent bien de pair
 La libertĂ© a-t-elle vraiment jamais existé ? Elle a sans doute existĂ© en tant qu’idĂ©e, en tant qu’idĂ©al, dans une sorte d’imagination illuministe de la modernitĂ©, une sorte de parenthĂšse un peu folle. Il reste qu’il est trĂšs difficile de savoir comment elle a pu surgir. Au fond, la mĂȘme question se pose pour le rĂ©el.

— Jean Baudrillard, D’un fragment l’autre, Entretiens avec François de L’Yvonnet

Baudrillard, Art

 

My concern is not the misery of the world. I don’t want to be cynical, but we are not going to protect art. The more cultural protectionism we enact, the more waste we have, the more false successes, false promotions there are. It puts us in the marketing realm of culture

To put it naively, the pretension of art shocks me. And it is hard to escape, it did not happen overnight. Art was turned into something pretentious with the will to transcend the world, to give an exceptional, sublime form to things. Art has become an argument for mental prowess.
The mental racket run by art and the discourse on art is considerable. I do not want anyone to make me say that art is finished, dead. That is not true. Art does not die because there is no more art, it dies because there is too much. The excess of reality disheartens me as does the excess of art when it imposes itself as reality.

— Jean Baudrillard, “The Conspiracy of Art”

 

But I do not put myself in a position of truth. Everyone makes his or her own choices. If what I say is worthless, just let it drop, that’s all.
The article was written a little hastily. I should not have started like that. I should have said that there is a hint of nullity in contemporary art. Is it null, or isn’t it? What is nullity? My article is perfectly contradictory. On the one hand, I use nullity as null or nothing, and on the other, I say: nullity is a tremendous singularity. That is a critique that could have been made.
My text reflects a mood, an obsession with something, something more. That we have moved from art as such to a sort of trans-aestheticization of banality
 It comes from Duchamp, okay. I have nothing against Duchamp, it is a fantastic and dramatic turn.
But he did set in motion a process in which everyone is now implicated, including us. What I mean is that in daily life, we have this “readymadeness” or this trans-aestheticization of everything which means that there is no longer any illusion to speak of. This collapsing of banality into art and art into banality, or this respective game, complicit and all
 Well, from complicity to conspiracy
 We are all compromised. I am not denying it. I certainly have no nostalgia for old aesthetic values.

— Jean Baudrillard, “The Conspiracy of Art”

 

The only things I said about art that excited me were on Warhol, Pop Art and Hyperrealism. I think Andy Warhol was the only artist at a time when are was caught up in a very important transitional movement, the only artist who was able to situate himself at the forefront, before all the changes. Maybe it’s also just luck or destiny
 Everything that characterizes his work—the advent of banality, the mechanized gestures and images, and especially his inconolatry—he turned all of that into an event of platitude. It’s him and nobody else! Later on, other simulated it, but he was the greatest simulator, with style to match! The exhibition of his works in Venice (Summer 1990) far surpassed and outclassed everything else in the Biennial.
Andy Warhol was a big moment in the 20th century because he was the only one who had a gift for dramatization. He still managed to bring out simulation as drama, a dramaturgy: something dramatic slipped between two phases, the passage into the image and the absolute equivalence of all images. His principle was to say, “I am a machine, I am nothing.” Since then, everyone has just repeated the same mantra, only pretentiously. He, however, thought it as something radical: “I am nothing and I can function.” “I am working on every level, artistic, commercial, advertising
” “I am operationality itself!”
He affirmed the world in its total evidence, the stars, the post-figurative world (it is neither figurative nor non-figurative, but mythical). His world was glamorous and everyone in it was glamorous! Warhol’s act could be considered a revisitation of art after Duchamp. According to our own coordinates and temporality, it is less a work of art than an anthropological event. That’s what interests me about him: the object. He is someone who, with utter cynicism and agnosticism, brought about a manipulation, a transfusion of the image into reality, into the absent referent of star-making banality.
Warhol remains for me a found of modernity. It is somewhat paradoxical, since modernity is usually considered more of a destruction; yet there is a certain jubilation, not at all suicidal or melancholy, because, ultimately, that’s the way he is: cool, and even more than cool, totally insouciant. It’s mechanical snobbism and I like that kind of provocation of aesthetic morals. Warhol freed us from aesthetics and art


— Jean Baudrillard, “The Conspiracy of Art”

 


Jean Baudrillard, photographie

« The degree of intensity of the image matches the degree of its denial of the real, its invention of another scene. To make an image of an object is to strip the object of all its dimensions one by one: weight, relief, smell, depth, time, continuity and, of course, meaning. This disembodiment is the price to be paid for that power of fascination which the image acquires, the price for its becoming a medium of pure objectality, becoming transparent to a subtler form of seduction. »

— Jean Baudrillard – Photographies

le syndrome godzilla

[rĂ©cupĂ©ration d’une note de mon tumlbr]

« Je retourne sur mon lit. Le dĂ©sordre rĂšgne en maĂźtre. Il y a un livre de maths, un roman de Murakami Ryu, un carnet de liaison en partie falsifiĂ©, des feuilles A4 dissĂ©minĂ©es. J’ai enfin trouvĂ© un site valable sur Godzilla, un site dotĂ© d’une chronologie solide et d’une liste de monstres exhaustive qui prĂ©sente aussi les affiches originales, un comparatif japonais/amĂ©ricain, des analyses de contenu, un billet d’humeur sur l’adaptation holywoodienne et des biographies des rĂ©alisateurs. Tout ça commence Ă  m’intĂ©resser pour de bon.
J’esssaie de classer mes papiers. Je feuillette mon agenda pour les semaines à venir. Je suis en retard sur tout.
L’impact de Godzilla sur la culture amĂ©ricaine.
Certes, le film de Roland Emmerich n’a pas Ă©tĂ© un succĂšs colossal au regard des sommes investies, mais il a tout de mĂȘme engrangĂ© cent quarante millions de dollars lĂ -bas, et si les producteurs de l’époque avaient eu la bonne idĂ©e de le confier Ă  un vrai rĂ©alisateur, sans doute aurait-il pu en rapporter beaucoup plus.
Qu’est ce qui peut rĂ©unir deux pays aussi dissemblables que le Japon et les Etats-Unis ? Le fait que l’un ait reçu deux bombes sur la gueule et que l’autre les ait envoyĂ©es ? C’est peut-ĂȘtre ça, Godzilla. Et si les AmĂ©ricains s’obstinent bĂȘtement Ă  tronçonner, remanier, dĂ©tourner les films japonais qui arrivent chez eux jusqu’à ĂŽter toute signification, c’est peut ĂȘtre qu’ils ont peur (voila ce Ă  quoi je rĂ©flĂ©chis en regardant tressaillir les maronniers du square). »

— Fabrice Colin, Le Syndrome Godzilla

Parce que ce passage m’a fait sourire.

Et sinon, j’ai adorĂ© le roman.

for a reason

I’d also like to point out that large financial centers in certain cities around the planet are certainly going to kill millions of us by destroying our social safety networks in the name of their imaginary financial efficiency. You’re a thousand times more likely to die because of what some urban banker did in 2008 than from what some Afghan-based terrorist did in 2001. *Financiers live in small, panicky urban cloisters, severely detached from the rest of mankind. They are living today in rich-guy ghetto cults. They are truly dangerous to our well-being, and they are getting worse and more extremist, not better and more reasonable. You’re not gonna realize this havoc till you see your elderly Mom coughing in an emergency ward, but she’s going there for a reason.

– Bruce Sterling in an interview on BoingBoing on Cities

MyMusic update

20110624d-2 / work in progress / aimed to be some sort of ambient music for a video game.

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/18378365″]

***

Midijunkies v2 beta (ATR cover / ripoff / thing) / some sort of ATR cover / rip off / thingie ; the base bass is from the song by Atari Teenage Riot, from there I toyed with it… #ForTheLULZ

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/21090628″]

***

20110819 / latest snippet, work in progress.

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/21433928″]

maybe you are a poet

« Maybe you are a poet and a dreamer, but don’t you realize that those two species are extinct now? »

— J.G. Ballard