Hubbub has gone into hibernation.

‘The Strange Things People Play’ at the Hide&Seek Weekender Conference

Here’s the blog post ver­sion of what I talked about at Play­ing in Pub­lic, the Hide&Seek Week­ender Con­fer­ence. It’s titled The Strange Things Peo­ple Play, which was an oblique ref­er­ence to this pas­sage from The Hitch­hik­er’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“I know that astrol­o­gy isn’t a sci­ence,” said Gail. “Of course it isn’t. It’s just an arbi­trary set of rules like chess or ten­nis or—what’s that strange thing you British play?” “Er, crick­et? Self-loathing?” “Par­lia­men­tary democ­ra­cy. The rules just kind of got there. They don’t make any kind of sense except in terms of them­selves. But when you start to exer­cise those rules, all sorts of process­es start to hap­pen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about peo­ple. In astrol­o­gy the rules hap­pen to be about stars and plan­ets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the dif­fer­ence it would make. It’s just a way of think­ing about a prob­lem which lets the shape of that prob­lem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbi­trary they are, the bet­ter. It’s like throw­ing a hand­ful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hid­den inden­ta­tions are. It lets you see the words that were writ­ten on the piece of paper above it that’s now been tak­en away and hid­den. The graphite’s not impor­tant. It’s just the means of reveal­ing their inden­ta­tions. So you see, astrology’s noth­ing to do with astron­o­my. It’s just to do with peo­ple think­ing about people.

I enjoyed that when read­ing it the first time because it’s such a sharp obser­va­tion of how games func­tion on one lev­el: as a way of zoom­ing on cer­tain aspects of human behav­ior. As a mod­el for how games can con­tribute to social change, it isn’t half bad.

But that was­n’t what I real­ly talked about. The con­fer­ence was the cul­mi­na­tion of three days of peo­ple play­ing all kinds of games at the South­bank Cen­tre. We had the plea­sure of run­ning Cer­e­mo­ny of Sur­prise as part of this. The con­fer­ence focused on what’s next for play in pub­lic space. I decid­ed to mash up some of the ideas I had come across recent­ly, about leg­i­bil­i­ty and the weird­ness of objects for instance, and see where it would take me.

I start out briefly respond­ing to some of the recent debates about how it’s wrong to defend games as an art form on the basis of their use­ful­ness. I then go on to sug­gest it’s impor­tant we keep devel­op­ing new pub­lic games, and that weird­ness might be a use­ful cri­te­ri­on for find­ing nascent forms of pub­lic play.

In defense of usefulness

I keep get­ting drawn into the seem­ing dichoto­my that exists between applied games, and for lack of a bet­ter word, use­less games: enter­tain­ment games, art games, etc. What fol­lows is yet anoth­er attempt to alle­vi­ate my anx­i­eties about the top­ic. And in doing so, hope­ful­ly point towards some new avenues of explo­ration for future pub­lic games.

Recent­ly, in some cir­cles, there have been argu­ments made against the urge to defend games on the basis of their “use­ful­ness”. It is said that oth­er cul­tur­al forms, such as music and visu­al art aren’t respect­ed for their use­ful­ness. They’re valid forms of expres­sion and that’s enough. The same should apply to games. I agree.

But then the argu­ment is often con­tin­ued with the sug­ges­tion that by attempt­ing to use games for what I’ll call exter­nal pur­pos­es, the cul­tur­al form of games is “cheap­ened”. And that’s the point where I begin to feel uneasy. Under­stand­ably so, because my whole prac­tice is based on the premise that we can make games that work towards solv­ing social issues.

Now I total­ly get that many applied games, or game-like appli­ca­tions are in fact noth­ing more than an attempt to uti­lize play for oth­er ends. I’m not so cool with this myself. I’d like to think that the games Hub­bub makes, and oth­er applied game design­ers that I admire, are respect­ful of the medi­um. They can be played as games first and also have cer­tain kinds of sec­ond order effects that are of val­ue to soci­ety in var­i­ous ways. And I think that’s great. And I don’t think that cheap­ens games.

As an aside, I would like to add that, as some­one with a back­ground in design, I am actu­al­ly puz­zled by this idea that the use of a cul­tur­al form for oth­er ends by def­i­n­i­tion cheap­ens it. Is a doc­u­men­tary film with an agen­da a cheap­en­ing of cin­e­ma? Does graph­ic design, this poster designed by Wim Crouwel for instance, cheap­en visu­al art?

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 007

Anoth­er way I’d like to think about this is inspired by Alain de Botton’s won­der­ful book The Archi­tec­ture of Hap­pi­ness, in which he con­vinc­ing­ly describes how the esthet­ics of archi­tec­ture, the non-use­ful stuff, beyond pro­vid­ing shel­ter, is what we use to remind our­selves of the val­ues we hold high­est. The built envi­ron­ment reminds us of how we’d like to lead our lives. What we deem beau­ti­ful is close­ly relat­ed to our visions of happiness.

The same can apply to urban games. Urban games can be reminders of the ways we’d like to live. In par­tic­u­lar, the ways in which we’d like to live togeth­er. I can ref­er­ence no bet­ter exam­ple than the work of Bernie DeKoven, and the New Games move­ment as a whole.

Games should get weird

With that out of the way, let’s turn our atten­tion to pub­lic play. The ques­tion is where game design for pub­lic places might be head­ed in the future. Or per­haps, where should it be head­ed? I’ll try to argue that our games will get weird.

I mean weird in a sim­i­lar sense to weird fic­tion. You know, the kind of stuff H.P. Love­craft used to write at the begin­ning of the pre­vi­ous cen­tu­ry. Intel­lec­tu­als hap­haz­ard­ly stum­bling across hid­den secrets of the cos­mos and going stark rav­ing mad in the process.1

This, I think is an inter­est­ing mod­el for how we deal with the future. We under­stand new stuff in terms of the old. The new is only made part of soci­ety when it allows itself to be domes­ti­cat­ed in this way. Every­thing else is kept at bay. If we stum­ble across these undo­mes­ti­cat­ed future things with­out the metaphors to under­stand them, the expe­ri­ence is quite unpleas­ant and we quick­ly with­draw.2

What’s also inter­est­ing about H.P. Lovecraft’s work is that it pre­dates com­mer­cial genre fic­tion: hor­ror and sci­ence fic­tion and fan­ta­sy. It was kind of an undo­mes­ti­cat­ed, wild form of sto­ry­telling. At some point, parts of it were adopt­ed by the main­stream, neat­ly parceled out into genre. In the process much of its head spin­ning poten­cy was lost, but it gained in use­ful­ness to insti­tu­tions, in this case book sellers.

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 013

In search of new forms of play

I think this notion of the weird can be used by design­ers of pub­lic play as a way to grasp and grope towards inter­est­ing new forms.

For one, I say this because what was once a wild and undo­mes­ti­cat­ed, avant garde form, the urban per­va­sive game, has to a large extent been tamed. We’ve more or less fig­ured them out. And also, the spaces we’ve cre­at­ed them for have fig­ured them out. Our cities have fig­ured them out. The lud­i­fi­ca­tion of cul­ture can also be seen as a domes­ti­ca­tion of play.

This has made our games more use­ful for insti­tu­tions, who pre­fer their cul­tur­al forms to be leg­i­ble. The gam­bling indus­try is a won­der­ful and per­haps dis­turb­ing exam­ple of play har­nessed by the state. But as machines for under­stand­ing our future cities, they have become less useful.

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 016

The future of our cities is weird. And the metaphors we have so far used to under­stand our cities do not suf­fice when it comes to these new cities. New megac­i­ties like Shen­zhen and oth­er places in Asia, Africa and Latin Amer­i­ca are noth­ing like the Man­hat­tan or the Euro­pean cities that served as ref­er­ence points for Jane Jacobs and company.

Schizophrenic Shenzhen

Longhua Sci­ence & Tech­nol­o­gy Park is Foxconn’s facil­i­ty in Shen­zhen. It is a citadel with­in a mega­lopo­lis of 14 mil­lion inhab­i­tants. The facil­i­ty has 420.000 employ­ees, most of whom live in com­pa­ny owned dor­mi­to­ries. They trav­el to the facil­i­ty on cor­po­rate busses. The streets, build­ings and infra­struc­ture are all com­pa­ny owned.3

David Kouse­mak­er reports from anoth­er part of Shen­zhen. He describes peo­ple recy­cling old mobile phones and build­ing new ones from the parts they painstak­ing­ly sal­vage. In a mas­sive mar­ket, small shops each spe­cial­ize in a few tasks. Togeth­er, these peo­ple assem­ble weird mutant off­spring of the high tech gad­gets that most of us real­ly only under­stand as shiny box­es you talk into and poke at. The rela­tion­ships these Shen­zhen inhab­i­tants as well as the Fox­conn employ­ees have with this tech is com­plete­ly alien to us.

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 019

Life here is noth­ing like in our West­ern cities. It is char­ac­ter­ized by “a schizoid mix of glob­al cap­i­tal­ism and hard­line Com­mu­nism.“4 Jane Jacobs’s Man­hat­tanist metaphors sim­ply don’t apply anymore.


That’s impor­tant because pub­lic games are often a form of metapho­rism. That is to say, they invite us to under­stand an essen­tial­ly unknow­able thing, a city, in terms of some­thing else. But when cities have rad­i­cal­ly changed, then we need new metaphors to under­stand them.5

Anoth­er aside: this why Matt Jones’s post The City Is A Bat­tle­suit For Sur­viv­ing The Future is so inter­est­ing. Because it pro­pos­es a new metaphor. Grant­ed, a rather mil­i­taris­tic one, but nonethe­less, a new one. It would be an inter­est­ing exer­cise to design games that allow you to explore the city-as-bat­tle­suit metaphor.

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 022

It’s kind of com­pli­cat­ed because the issue isn’t so much with Jacobs’s stance that cities are com­plex, emer­gent forms and as such they thrive when they are dense­ly inter­con­nect­ed. And this whole idea that high-mod­ernist plan­ning tech­niques, attempts to make the city tidi­er, more leg­i­ble from the top-down actu­al­ly make a city less resilient, more brit­tle. This idea still holds.

But the fact is, the way cities are com­ing into being, or devel­op beyond the point of Jacobs’s Man­hat­tanist opti­mal state, is noth­ing like her beloved Green­wich Vil­lage, or my home­town Utrecht, which I so dear­ly love for its enor­mous liv­abil­i­ty. Cities thrive on the edge of leg­i­bil­i­ty. It’s a stand­ing wave. We can’t expect them to stay the way they are.6

So to restate my pre­vi­ous point, the Man­hat­tanist metaphors we’ve used for our cities do not apply to the new ones. But it’s the new ones we’ll find our­selves liv­ing in, and we’ll find our­selves design­ing for. We need new games for these new cities, that pro­pose new metaphors. The ques­tion is, how to get to these new forms. And that’s where the weird comes in.

The hunt begins

My invi­ta­tion is to start hunt­ing for wild undo­mes­ti­cat­ed forms of play as inspi­ra­tion for new weird games. I’ll give a few exam­ples to kick things off.

When the stu­pe­fy­ing­ly large Shard is offi­cial­ly unveiled, pro­fes­sion­al trou­ble­mak­er James Bri­dle plays a prank. It res­onates with us because it gives us a metaphor for under­stand­ing this weird thing that should not be. It is also heart­en­ing to see one indi­vid­ual co opt a mas­sive media event with noth­ing more than a sim­ple placard.

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 027

In Jakar­ta, where the occur­rence of total grid­lock seems immi­nent, urban inter­ven­tion­ists Irwan Ahmett and Tita Sali­na ral­ly locals to jog with them along the poles of the failed mono­rail. It is a humor­ous deflec­tion of what is essen­tial­ly very unset­tling evi­dence of a city strug­gling to stay functional.

Back home in the Nether­lands, artist Sarah van Sons­beeck high­lights the hertz­ian spaces sur­round­ing us by mak­ing an object that fre­quent­ly fig­ures in sci­ence fic­tion a real­i­ty: a fara­day bag.

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 029

Cyborg activist Steve Mann is assault­ed by McDon­alds employ­ees in Paris because he won’t remove his sousveil­lane array. Mann high­lights the peer dis­tri­b­u­tion in our per­va­sive­ly sur­veilled soci­ety by instru­ment­ing his indi­vid­ual capac­i­ties to do the same thing the state does all the time.

In Venice, Julian Char­rière and Julius von Bis­mar­ck paint pigeons to make them appear more desir­able, in stead of the fly­ing rats they are usu­al­ly made out to be. The out­rage on the net high­lights our con­flict­ed rela­tion­ship with these ani­mals: is it harm­ful to do this? Does it pre­vent them from evad­ing preda­tors or find­ing a mate for instance? Also, is it eth­i­cal to seek fame at the expense of these ani­mals? And I won­der, how long before urban design pro­gress­es to include urban lifeforms?

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 031

Hojun Song is build­ing his own satel­lite and work­ing to get it shot into space. By doing this he shows what a pri­vate indi­vid­ual can now achieve with open infor­ma­tion and ubiq­ui­tous social networks.

Unfold, a design col­lec­tive from Bel­gium deployed Kiosk at the Milan Fur­ni­ture Fair. It’s a mobile fab­ri­ca­tion facil­i­ty that scans and prints con­sumer prod­ucts. Their aim was to con­front prod­uct design­ers with the immi­nent democ­ra­ti­za­tion of fab­ri­ca­tion tools.

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 033

And final­ly from my own prac­tice: a game for pigs and humans. We reg­u­lar­ly con­sume these ani­mals, but hard­ly ever meet them in the flesh. This in itself is a result of how we’ve sep­a­rat­ed rur­al and urban areas. In this project we’re try­ing to cre­ate a new rec­i­p­ro­cal under­stand­ing, through play. Might this lead to new pat­terns of behavior?

Strange things people play hide and seek weekender conference 2012 035

In my eyes, these are all play­ful acts. And all of them are wild, undo­mes­ti­cat­ed, illeg­i­ble. The play­ers in these cas­es focus on var­i­ous unset­tling things of city life.

They are weak sig­nals per­haps, but sig­nals nonethe­less. They point to ways in which we can hunt for wild forms of play: start­ing from those mate­ri­als, those objects, actors of var­i­ous kinds and spaces, that unset­tle us. And then draw out the unset­tling aspects, frame them, so that we can under­stand them. Per­haps not direct­ly, but in terms of some­thing else.

The irony is of course that by doing so, by turn­ing wild play into games, we are domes­ti­cat­ing it. But then, we can always go out hunt­ing again.

  1. Part of the inspi­ra­tion to use Love­craft as a start­ing point for new direc­tions for design was inspired by Gra­ham Har­man’s On the Hor­ror of Phe­nom­e­nol­o­gy in Col­lapse IV. []
  2. This mod­el for futur­ism is heav­i­ly inspired by Venkatesh Rao’s writ­ing, in par­tic­u­lar Wel­come to the Future Nau­seous. []
  3. For this pas­sage and the obser­va­tions on the obso­les­cence of some of Jane Jacob­s’s ideas in the face of new cities such as Shen­zhen I am indebt­ed to the excel­lent Kos­mo­grad arti­cle The Bal­let of iPod City. []
  4. From the afore­men­tioned Kos­mo­grad arti­cle again. []
  5. For more on met apho­rism, read Ian Bogost’s Alien Phe­nom­e­nol­o­gy, in par­tic­u­lar chap­ter three. []
  6. For more on this, also see The Death of Man­hat­tanism at Domus. []
This entry was posted in Talks and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Posted October 8, 2012 at 10:04 | Permalink

    I am going to call you on some nice segues but no true cen­tral con­cept ;-) I think of games not as being brought in from the wild, but emerg­ing as the under­ly­ing struc­ture they always were. The end of the den­i­gra­tion of games and play is our cul­ture final­ly exit­ing from a local-solu­tion and clos­ing on a true opti­mum. There are a lim­it­ed num­ber of plea­sure stim­uli hard­wired into humans and they are all strong­ly linked to sur­vival: eat­ing, repro­duc­ing and appar­ent­ly play­ing. How edu­ca­tion has suc­ceed­ed in elim­i­nat­ing the plea­sure from learn­ing is a hor­ror sto­ry for anoth­er fireside.

  2. Kars
    Posted October 10, 2012 at 16:43 | Permalink

    Thanks for your thoughts Tim. Per­haps you’re look­ing for a cen­tral con­cept where you should­n’t expect one. I am increas­ing­ly reluc­tant to reduce play to being about this, or about that. The way peo­ple per­ceive play is often very much influ­enced by their out­look on life, and their what they expect to gain from fram­ing play in a cer­tain man­ner. (I’ll admit I am as guilty of this as any­one.) In any case, I was try­ing to steer clear of the sub­ject in this talk, and in stead look at how new play forms emerge and are turned into games. Most­ly because over the course of the last 5 years I have seen a par­tic­u­lar form of pub­lic play, the urban per­va­sive game, be more or less embraced by the main­stream, at the expense of much of its poten­cy, at least to me. So this is my attempt to under­stand the dynam­ic, and per­haps soothe some of the fears I myself had about all play ulti­mate­ly being tamed.

  3. Posted October 11, 2012 at 04:57 | Permalink

    That final list, of course, being a nice Latour Litany of sorts. =) – I’m unsure what to make of the list­ed things in terms of for­ward­ing unset­tling illeg­i­bil­i­ty, for it seems that all of them are pret­ty easy to make sense of, if only from a pro­gres­sivist stand­point, no? That’s what I actu­al­ly like about Steve Mann, as that arti­cle by Claire Evans exer­cis­es: No mat­ter how long you think about what he does, you still feel ambigu­ous, con­flict­ed. Sec­ond­ly, I’m a bit wary of falling into the all-too-com­fy deconstruction/critical theory/modernist art stock trap – preach­ing to the con­vert­ed that we ought to “chal­lenge ways of see­ing.” Put oth­er­wise: Weird­ing out is a good start­ing point, but I would expect from games and play of all things to go beyond just that.

  4. Kars
    Posted October 12, 2012 at 10:13 | Permalink

    The list might be a bit gra­tu­itous but I hope it serves a pur­pose. Per­haps some of these exam­ples aren’t as unset­tling to you, but the real point is that I sus­pect for their play­ers, these actions were born from unset­tle­ment, at least to some extent. So the point isn’t that game should be unset­tling – although with­in lim­its I am all for this of course – but that game mak­ers might dis­cov­er new forms of play by start­ing from what unset­tles them. So you’re right: it’s a start­ing point, not a des­ti­na­tion. Ulti­mate­ly the des­ti­na­tion – for me at least – is to offer new ways of mak­ing sense of the con­tem­po­rary urban condition.