Participatory Video Game Installation in the Art World - Coursework Example

Participatory Video Game Installation in the Art World By Introduction Participatory art is not new, as audiences have always participated in art in one way or another. Art installs visible representations of the world in a variety of ways including canvas painting, texts, films and so on. Art installation is exhibited for observation allowing it to be experienced by audiences (Groys, 2009). However, theories of participatory art contemplate the greater participation than the passivity that characterises observing and experiencing a work of art individually. Theories of participatory art are predicated on the belief that capitalism has generated alienation, and greater, more involved participation in art can repair a fractured society (Bishop, 2012). The interactive opportunities of modern technology especially in the digital world have brought the concept of participatory arts to a unique level allowing audiences to interact with art in a way that they themselves become collaborators and co-producers (Bishop, 2012B). Contemporary participatory arts therefore challenges the traditional exhibition of art through curating where the curator chose what arts were of value and when and where it should be made available for consumption/viewing (Tang, 2007). Thus the subjective perspectives and value judgments involved in traditional curating are weakened, and this shift is consistent with the theoretical perspective that there is an increasing need for a more integrated approach to ‘institutional power, cultural freedom and artistic value’ (Charlesworth, 2006, p. 4). Curators traditionally assumed a collaborative role with artists. However the expansion of installation arts to video installations challenged conventional curating models and opened up new avenues for reconfiguring exhibitions and the spaces used for sharing arts (Paul, 2006). Video installations provide new ways for the distribution and ‘accessing of art’ that functions ‘independently of the institutional art world’ (Paul, 2006, p. 81). According to Paul (2006), installation video arts exist in a ‘museum’ without walls and calls for new forms of collaboration, especially through interactive videos that facilitates active audience participation. Video game installations arguably heighten the audience’s experiences and emotions and radically transforms the audience from passive observers/participants to active participants and quite often collaborators (Wolf, 2003). Thus video game installations are consistent with participatory theory in that video games establishes an immediate and engaging relationship with the audience in what is described as ‘two-way interplay’ (Stiles, p. 384). This paper demonstrates how video game installations are consistent with the conceptualization of participatory art and challenges the traditional curating model through an exhibition using the 2012 video game Journey. Journey: Organizing and Operating Space for Audience Participation Journey was introduced in 2012 and described by observers as much more than a work of art, but also a work of art that one had to experience (Stuart, 2012). Journey is described as ‘part adventure’ and ‘part meditation on life and death’ (Stuart, 2012). The game is structured so as to invoke emotional responses along the way. As a multi-player game system, Journey requires audience collaboration and interaction. Thus audiences are brought together from remote locations in a virtual world consisting of emotional music, a ‘looming symbolic landscape’, characterised by the ‘exploration of interactivity and telepresence’ (Stuart, 2012). Journey is Thatgamecompany’s third video game and it begins with the participant awaking alone and ‘surrounded by miles of burning, sprawling desert,’ with a mountain placed in the background (Thatgamecompany, n.d.) (See Figure 1) The participant soon learns that his or her objective is to reach the mountain top. However, the journey is complex as it is replete with ‘rolling sand dunes, age-old ruins, caves and howling winds’ (Thatgamecompany, n.d.) (See Figure 2). On the way to the mountaintop, the participants meet others along the way (presumably other players) and while collaborating and helping one another accomplish the same goal, much is learned about the self, mankind and life itself (Thatgamecompany, n.d.) (See Figure 3). Figure 1: Opening Sequence in Journey *Source: Thatgamecompany (n.d.). Figure 2: A Frame of Landscape Encountered in Journey *Source: Thatgamecompany (n.d.) Figure 3: Encounters With Other Participants in Journey *Source: Thatgamecompany (n.d.) Ultimately, Journey is subjective in that although players interacting with one another share common experiences, each player has his or her own interpretation of the scenary and the encounters with the scenary. Each player brings with him or her, their own unique life experiences and knowledge and although they may share the experiences in navigating the journey to the mountain, each encounter is shaped by indviduality. Therefore, Journey is both a narrative on social exchange and self-discovery. Journey is therefore a manifestation of claims that video games are an ‘expressive medium’ (Bogost, 2007, p. i). Video games are representations of how ‘real and imagined systems work’ (Bogost, 2007, p. i). In particular, video games do not tie the audience and the artist to a single space as with traditional artworks. Video games deploy infinite space and appeals to the audience’s immagination in wholly satisfactory ways. As Poole (2000) states: We want to be shocked by novelty. We want to ose ourselves in a space that is utterly different. We want environments that have never been seen, never been imagined before (219-220). Thus video games are characterised as both ‘persuasive and expressive’ in that they have the ability to appeal to specific demands on the visual and entertainment arts (Bogost, 2008, p. 125). Journey however, takes the concept of persuasion and expression in a unique direction. Rather than shock value, Journey uses imagery and natural perils as a means of persuading self-discovery, and revealing subjective purpose and meaning. A similar game invented by Thatgamecompany is Flower. Flower engages encounters with the environment and in doing so invites participants to collect flower petals which reflect changes to the natural environment with the expectation that players will also change along the way as he or she engages with contrasts between urban life and nature (See Figure 4). Figure 4: Flower and Environmental Expressions *Source: Thatgamecomany (n.d.) Noby Noby Boy for PS3 is also a unique video game that facilitates interactive play and collaboraiton among players. The players participate as Boy, a character who is able to eat and regurgitate anything, including people, trees, animals and buildings. Eating and regurgitating is designed to manipulate Boy’s size as he stretches and moves through and over obstacles. Players can collaborate to unlock different levels of the game. As Boy grows, his growth is downloaded to Girl who mimics his growth and expands throughout the universe. As Girl enters new areas of the universe, different stages of the game are unlocked for all users playing in the same game (IGN, 1996-2014). The game exhibitted will be Journey. The challenge will be achieving participation as the video game will be shown on a big screen. In order to overcome this challenge, a further demension is added to the installation. The additional dimension will be performative in nature. In this regard, four contemporary dancers will perform a live embodied response to the music and visuals delivered by Journey. The audience will participate in the game play by controlling the performers with complete autonomy within the game. In essence, the addition of this new dimension is intended to link alternate and immediate realities and to speculate about the choices participants make when engaged in an alternate reality by externalisng the resulting effects of their actions on real people. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY5zWwToOEg&feature=youtu.be). In order to present the installation as described, three projectors, two game consoles, three controllers, three headphones and a sound system will be used. The budget for sofa rental, dancers fees, rental of costumes and game consoles are 80 pounds, 150 pounds, 150 X 3 pounds and 100 x 3 pounds respectively. Logic and Participatory Theory: How Art Interacts and Communicates with the Audience Rugoff (2006) cautions that although a collection of art on exhibit may be entirely great, there is always the risk that the exhibition may fall flat if it does not engage the audience. Similarly, a seemingly bland work of art, if curated successfully can be a phenomenal success if it engages the audience. In this regard, Rugoff (2006) states that: …exhibitions need to be packaged in ways that include significant roles for their visitors. A truism of curating holds that the different works in a group should engage in a dialogue with one another, but what is often neglected is the question of how your audience can engage in conversations with your exhibition (p. 47). The video game Journey directly addresses the issue of the audience engaging in conversations with the installation. The audience is a part of the narrative and is in control of what happens next and is free to interpret events and episodes as he or she sees fit. This is entirely important as Bishop (2012) informs. According to Bishop (2012), participatory theory argues that artists can no longer afford to simply exhibit a work of art for passive consumption in today’s world. A simple walk down the street can expose the individual to what might appear to be a great work of art. Art should be a means of communicating alternatives to a world in which there is ‘an atomised pseudocommunity of consumer’ whose ‘sensibilities’ are ‘dulled by spectacle and repetition’ (Bishop, 2012, p. 11). In social and political circles, this spectacle and repetiiton is overcome by avoding social exclusion. Thus art should be no different in that art should be participatory and collaborative (Bishop, 2012). There is no doubt that Journey is participatory and collaborative. The video game as described above in the previous section, directly engages the participants by positiong them as the major character in the video game with self-directed tasks that provides the participant with complete control of choices and judgments in circumstances that are symbolic of the social and physical environment. Likewise, the participant has the opportunity to collaborate with other players in the online environment in which the game is played. These encounters permit problem solving and thus counters the social exclusion that participatory arts theory illuminates. The exhibition presented by the author replicates audience participation in that where it is not possible to engage audience participation precisely, this is dealt with by adding another dimension to the video game. The use of contemporary dancers ensures that the audience becomes collaborators and are not reduced to passive participation. The audience has choices to make relative to real people in circumstances in which real people are juxtaposed against a virtual or alternative reality. Heinrich (2014) argues that participatory art is a phenomenon of the post modern and modern art eras which seeks to create some distance from the Renaissance Era and at the same time seeks to carry on where the Renaissance left off. It was during the Renaissance, that the individual became the subject of art. In this regard, ‘subjectivity’ emerged as a central theme in conceptualizations of beauty during the modern era. Thus, at face value at least: …participant interactions in participatory art emphasise the subjective dimensions of art even more; clearly every participant’s experience differs from another, not only due to individual perception and interpretation, but also because different participants render different instantiations (Heinrich, 2014, p. 30). In other words, participatory arts theory contemplates that art should be a living instrument in which individuals do not simply observe and interpret what they see and keep those feelings to themselves. Participation means communicating with the art and with others and with the self. Participatory art through interactive video arts such as the video game Journey, takes this aspect of participatory theory to another dimension. In the video game Journey, the participants become a part of the art and communicate directly with the art and draws on his or her own perspectives and experiences in making decisions. Put simply, the participant brings his or her own life’s experiences, knowledge and feelings to the video game and not only becomes a part of the narrative, but also commandeers it. The interactive arts such as the video game Journey cannot escape participatory theory. As Dinkla (1996) explains, interactive arts do not place an emphasis on the aesthetics. Instead, the interactive arts emphasise the ‘dialogue between the program and user’ which ‘constitutes the artistic material’ (p.279). The communication between the audience and Journey is the programme itself and the control that it confers on the participant with respect to directing action within the game. The participant makes decisions and acts on them and the programme responds accordingly. The author’s exhibition follows this course by installing dancers and placing them under the control of the participants. The participants decide what they want the dancers to do and the dancers respond accordingly. Historically, participatory theory grew out of a desire to improve the connection between the art and the audience ‘either through spatial integration or by provocative address’ (Dinkla, 1996, 279). For example in 1913, Filippo Tommaso Marinetto suggested in Variety Theatre that Variety Theatre was the only art medium that courted audience participation. The audience was therefore not merely robots that sat around silently taking in what they were exposed to. Instead, the audience joined in with the action, applauding, singing, speaking to actors and so on (Dinkla, 1996). Max Ernst took the concept of participation a bit further in 1920 when he touched on the idea that the audience might participate in art exhibitions. Thus at an exhibition in Cologne, Ernst placed an ax next to one of his exhibited works with the expectation that an audience member who did not like the work of art, could use it to destroy the work. The audience however, did not comply. Another exhibited work did draw significant response at the same exhibition. This work was a drawing which left space at the bottom with an invitation for ‘any visitor of this exhibition to insert a Dadaistic or anti-Dadaistic aphorism in this drawing. No prosecution’ (Dinkler, 1996, 280). Thus, the idea of participatory arts is not new, although video games such as Journey takes participatory art to a unique level. Video games permit users to create their own characters or creatures and become involved in adventures, explorations and so on, that are persuasive and expressive. In Journey, the participant’s emotions are engaged as the journey is one of self-discovery. The participant is therefore also a creator and can also share his creations with other users. Therefore participatory arts in the interactive video game Journey facilitates and might even be said to requrie collaboration. During the 1970s participatory art theory directed attention toward the potentials implicit in modern technology. At this time, Ernest Edmonds and Stroud Cornock drew attention to the idea of a connection between the artist, the object and the audience once computer generated interactivity with art was discovered. Edmonds and Cornock referred to this new potential as ‘the matrix’ which contemplated that the artist, the object and the audience were all parts of the ‘art system’ and are ‘actively involved in the occurrence of the artwork’ (Muller and Edmonds, 2005, p. 147). In this regard, meaning is achieved through ‘the process of exchange’ and ‘interactivity itself is the very medium of the work’ (Muller and Edmonds, 2005, p. 147). Interactive video arts are a manifestation of participatory arts theory since it facilitates an art system that fosters collaboration. More importantly, it creates a communication enviornment in which the audience becomes a part of the creative landscape (Edmonds, Muller and Connell, 2006). This creative landscape is cultivated through two-way communication. The audience communicates with art and the art communicates with the audience, responding to audience commands. Traditionally, communication with a work of art meant only that the audience interpreted what the art work meant and represented and this invoked some abstract and personal response. However, two way communication in participatory interactive arts means that the art is incomplete until such time as the audience has some input. The audience’s input is responded to by the work of art and together, a conclusion is achieved. This aspect of participatory interactive art is accomplished in the author’s exhibition through the use of contemporary dancers. Although the dancers can dance, they will dance as the audience directs. Thus the audience completes this part of the exhibition. Overall, the video game Journey, the dancers and the audience function together to produce the dance cues and the actual dance and this is demonstrative of the collaborative nature of participatory arts. In particular, participatory interactive arts as demonstrated through the author’s exhibition, ensures that the art system is not completed until such time as the audience becomes involved. Conclusion As the author’s exhibtion will demonstrate, participatory interactive arts change the way that exhibitions are curated. Video games do not confine the art work to a particular space and does not requre a normative display in order to reach the audience. Its internet capabilities permits the video game to be viewed and played at great distances, by a large audience all at once and at any time. At the same time, the video games takes the audience to places both real and fanciful. In the meantime, the audience has a say in where the art work will take them and they have a unique opportunity to experience these spaces without restraint. Participatory interactive arts reaches out to the audience and engages them, inviting them to become a part of the creative process. Two-way communications occur, thus adding the audience to the creative landscape and facilitating collaboration. In this regard, the audience has now been tranformed into curators. The audience will be curators in the author’s exhibition as they will direct dancers’ appropriate responses to the video game Journey. In this regard, the audience is not passive recipients of visual arts and are subjectively involved. As subjective participants, the audience complete the narrative and contribute in ways that were not previously possible. Therefore, the author’s exhibition is consistent with participatory arts theory in that art is not a rigid object meant to be silently observed. Rather, art is more appropriately defined as a collaborative element requiring input from the entire art system. The art system consists of the audience, the artwork and the artist. The artwork is incomplete however, until such time as it is observed and responded to by an audience. References Bishop, C. 2012. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London: Verso. Bishop, C. September 2012A. Digital Divide. Artforum, 1-8. Bogost, I. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bogost, I. 2008. The Rhetoric of Video Games.’ In Salen, K. (Ed.)The Ecology of Games: Connecting Young, Games, and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Charlesworth, J.J. March 2006. Curating Doubt. Art Monthly, Vol. 294: 1-4. Dinkla, S. 1996. From Participation to Interaction: Toward the Origins of Interactive Art. In Leeson, L. H. (Ed.) Clicking in: Hot Links to a Digital Culture. Seattle, WA: Bay Press. Edmonds, E.; Muller, L. and Connell, M. October 2006. On Creative Engagement. Visual Communication, Vol. 5(3): 307-322. Groys, B. 2009.From Medium to Message: The Art Exhibition as Model of a New World Order. Open. No. 16: 56-65. Heinrich, F. 2014. Performing Beauty in Participatory Art and Culture. New York, NY: Routledge. Muller, L. and Edmonds, E. 2005. Living Laboratories: Making and Curating Interactive Art. Electronic Art and Animation Catalog Art Gallery, 147-150. Paul, C. 2006. Flexible Contexts, Democratic Filtering and Computer-Aided Curating: Models for Online Curatorial Practice. In Krysa, J. (Ed.) Curating Immateriality: the Work of the Curator in the Age of Network Systems. Autonomedia (DATA Browser 03), 81-101. Poole, S. 2000. Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution, New York, NY: Arcade Publishing. Rugoff, R. 2006. You Talking to Me? On Curating Group Shows that Give You a Chance to Join the Group. In Marincola, P. (ed) What Makes a Great Exhibition? Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiative. Stiles, K. (1996). Art and Technology. In Stiles, K. and Selz, P.H. (Eds.) Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: A Sourcebook of Artists’ Writings. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, Ch. 5. Stuart, K. 15 March 2012. Is Journey a Game or a Piece of Interactive Art? The Guardian. [online 14 April 2014] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2012/mar/15/journey-game-or-interactive-art Thatgamecompany. (n.d.) Journey. [online 14 April, 2014] http://thatgamecompany.com/games/journey/ Wolf, M.J.P. (2003). Abstraction in the Video Game, In Wolf, M.J.P. and Perron, B. (Eds.) The Video Game Theory Reader. Oxon, UK: Routledge, Ch. 2. Read More