Case Study 1 Little Big Planet

When doing the research for Playspace I was largely trying to stay away from video games as mediums of play. For while they are excellent distractions and in my personal opinion an emerging medium for art they are of insular and competitive experiences. Even games such as World of Warcraft while they consist of complex social interactions between thousands of people and are inherently a mulitplay experience they are very competition oriented and almost always violent, things that I was trying to shy away from in my pursuit of play. However since the beginning of this project one game has come out that has bucked the trend and has I hesitate to say almost beaten me to the punch in terms of collaborative/generative play. and that game is Little Big Planet





Having finally gotten a chance to play the game in its entirety through the generosity of my friend (I barely own a computer let alone a Playstation 3.) If the game were not so delightful I would almost feel dejected for its execution of an idea so close to the one I am working on, and it executes it very well. First for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of playing the game it is a wonderful blend of simplicity and overwhelming complexity. You exist as you avatar, the adorable and infinitely customizable Sackboy (seen above) whose actions are limited to grabbing objects, running an jumping in a game that is as simple as any video game has ever been this simplicity makes the game accessible to essentially everyone. Where the game really shines though is in its level editor, which come packaged with the software. It is a toy box with hundreds of textures, objects mechanical components and sounds which can come together in any million of different ways. Rather than attempt to explain the incredibly complex method of some of its capabilities I would direct your attention to a series of Youtube videos containing the vast array of user created content ranging from the relatively simple to the incredibly complex.


Sweet Child of Mine
Calculation Computer
Tetris
Combustion Engine


As you can see in these examples there is no shortage of creativity out there for these people and the tools are all there to create. I attempted this in my toys experiment, giving people a lot of tools to work with and there was success people seemed apprehensive alot of the time. Clearly this is not the case with Little Big Planet as when I looked yesterday there were thousands of levels on the sharing service. So I wonder what is the reason that these people are so keen on creating content? It seems that it is almost of a boastful nature, still very competitive, there is a feeling of "look what I have done , its the best" and so it seems that competition has pervaded here as well. However on a 2nd glance aside from popularity there is no reward for the creation of this content and to create something as complex as the computer, seen in the video, would undoubtedly take hours at least along with the relatively steep learning curve. I need to look into why people do this more, I think it could be of real use to Playspace

Study 2 Motivation and Rules

On Friday I had the opportunity to opportunity to observe a K'nex build off sponsored by the engineering student society. The established goal for Playspace here was to watch and determine if I should alter the level of competition and the level of instruction in the space. Initially I did not intend to create any level of competition nor intruction for Playspace, it was to be extremly freeform, zero instruction of any sort. However between 1st hand data collection and the online polls I have set up along with the previous experiments the emerging trend seems to be that the average person regardless of their creativity or playfullness cannot reach their full potential without at least some direction. The K'nex contest was proof positive that a bare framework of rules can actually lead to more creativity than an open form activity. It may have something to do with having an anchoring point to work from (another thing I learned in Kludge), the human mind prefers to establish a point of reference and then move from that point on to other solutions, a phenomenon known as "anchoring". Either way it seems that I will have to give some manner of direction to the participants or else they may simply loose interest. However now the trouble falls on the fact that I must add some semblance of structure to the piece without focusing the creative energy too narrowly onto a specific area. As it stands currently the goal will be to decide between two ideas for a direction method, implied rules and setting a precident.

Implied Rules
The challenge of implied rules is finding a way to lead the participants towards directing themselves. Ideally this approach will make the user feel like there are no rules but still prevent him or her from from being too lost as to how to interact with the piece. The implimentation of this piece is still in the creation phase

Setting a Precident
When specific rules sets are not an option setting a precident seems to be the way to go, giving the audience a suggestion as to things that could be done with the space not only allows them to recreate what they see in the examples but also leads to the very rewarding experience of game breaking and the feeling of accomplishment that ensues. Whether there will be an series of pictures or a video or other examples of work in the piece remains to be seen.

Study 1 Kludge and the Psychology of Play

During the analysis of footage on the experiments on toys and playing with light it became more and more evident that while it is important to present the audience with an activity it is almost equally important to appeal to the less definable aspects of play namely the psychology of play. Over the break I read a few articles and periodicals about the psychology of play some of which were more helpful than others but to my surprise a book I was reading for pleasure Kludge was what was the most impactful of the readings. The book is about the construction of the human mind. Written by Gary Marcus the director of the NYU Infant language learning center the book focus' on the shortcomings of the human mind and more importantly to me why the brain falls for certain tricks.








Gary Marcus author of Kludge









Early in the year I spoke with Mark about the best way to get people to interact with an art piece and his advice was to essentially trick them into letting their guard down and having a meaningful interaction with the piece. In Kludge a large portion of the book is dedicated to the tricks and exploits that we are susceptible to because of the construction of our mind, tricks that advertisers, lawyers and other influential figures know of and use on a regular basis. So in the spirit of repurposing everyday occurrences as is so prevalent in New Media I will be conducting further experiments on the getting the human mind into a play susceptible mindset. Examples of this include the Halo Effect which is a part of the human minds reliance on constant input, color theory and the 'mere familiarity' effect. The Halo Effect is a cognitive hiccup that allows the human mind to be cross contaminated with thoughts from one part seeping into another. For example people without a strong opinion on extreme sports are asked to read and memorize 2 different sets of words. One group is shown words such as caution, danger, injury recklessness and a variety of dummy words to keep the effect from being obvious, while the other group is given words like stimulating, excitement, adrenaline etc. The people who were fed the cautionary words focus on the dangers inherent with extreme sports while the 2nd group focus on the exciting aspects. Color theory provides us with relations the the average human being has with colors and their relations to the world. Finally the mere familiarity effect states that when we are unsure of a solution a familiar solution is generally chosen ever if the familiarity is unrelated to the question. Through further readings and tests I hope to be able to help make playspace the playful space it needs to be. Finally the forays in the intangible elements of play have allowed me to add a 3rd variable to my play algorithm.

CF = CM + SP +PE

Where CF= Total Creative Force CM = Cultural Merit (where the audience values what they are doing) SP= Space Positivity (lack of judgement etc...) and now PE = Psychological Effect(the small psychological stimulants associated and talked about above)

Survey 2: Associations of Play

Please take this second poll as well it would be an excellent use of your time also it would help me a lot.

The Poll

Survey 1: Rules and Authority

If you haven't already please take some time to fill out the first in a series of surveys on the topic of play for me. It will greatly aid the final product. Also feel free to be that guy and send it along to all your freinds with the threat or curses or the promise of true love attached to their email.

The Poll

Preview 1 Toys

11-21-8 Oakham House Conference Center Room 202

Friday November 21 is the date assigned for the inaugural free form experiment for Playspace. This experiment is formulated to include a number of people who have a limited amount if any previous contact to best emulate a non familiar gallery space where interaction will not be limited to acquaintances. The goal of this iteration is three fold, 1st to examine the physicality of play, IE: What people like to play with physically. 2nd To find out how strangers or relative strangers will interact when presented with the opportuity to play. 3rd to set out to prove the hypothesis that play may be successful when a creative record is established IE: When the audience is allowed to keep record of thier play.

The hypothesis here is one that explores the SP (Space Positivity) variable in the work. Until this point the experiments have all taken place with a relitivly close group of people who have not needed to over come the FI (Fearful Inertia) variable. In addition to the desire to observe people playing it will be a test of my abilitiy to create SP in a group of people with little or no previous contact which will be essential in the final gallery.

Also the name of the experiment may be a tad misleading as the objects placed in the room will not be toys of the conventional defiition. Rather they will simply be objects with or without a previous use that will allow for the users to project meaning onto the objects and have fun at the same time.

Note: This experiment will be filmed
Note: This will also explore a smaller hypothesis that was actually brought up by Stve Daniels in 3rd year in relation to brain storming. Notably the intrduction of sugar into the mix, Steve suggested always having cookies while brainstorming.

Experiment 4 Collective Canvas

11-09-08 Residence of Katie Goulay


After the trouble with previous events being to structured on the advice of a friend Playspace's 4th experiment was greatly simplified all that was requested was presence and some art supplies. Prior to the guests arriving there was a simple blue gradient painted on the canvas, this was done with the hopes of some cohesive direction for the piece. The blue gradient was ideal because it connoted either a sea scape or a sky scape both allowing for many possible directions for the smaller paintings to take. What is important to note about this exercise is very unstructured and is much closer in nature to how I imagine the final iteration of Playspace will function .

Initially I feared that the lack of direction would lead to a fear to participate and at the begining a few cries of " I don't know what to paint" could be heard although they were in the minority. After a few reassuring responces the painting was off to a roaoring start further proof that in order to truely gain project momentum you must first break the creative inertial wall. In mathematical terms,

CF > FI = AM (Desired Outcome) CF < fi =" CS (Undesirable Outcome Project Failure)
CF = Creative Force FI = Fearful Inertia AM = Artistic Momentum CS = Creative Stagnation

Truly the greatest challenge of Playspace is going to be finding a way to easily and reliably break the inertial wall of gallery goers and get them to engage in meaningful play by building Artistic Momentum. However common denominators I have observed so far indicate that there are certain ways to attain a desirable Artistic Momentum, a Positive Space is nessisary as well as a feeling of worthy input which we will call Cultural Merit.

CF= CM + SP + ?? + ?? ( Incomplete equation for building the Creative Force of Playspace)
CM = Cultural Merit SP= Space Positivity

In reality all that needs to be done is to complete the varialbes in the Creative Force eqaution to create the highest level of stable Creative Force. That is one of the keys to making Playspace a success.

The canvas near completion