Gamification in cultural institutions

A BALANCE ENRICHMENT BETWEEN AESTHETICS AND CULTURAL EXPERIENCE

A research paper of Game Studies New Media & Digital Culture Utrecht University 2011 By Lindsy Szilvasi L.M.F.Szilvasi@students.uu.nl

Within the digital cultur, contemporary art developments, and the dynamically changes of cultural places, gamification is an enkindled concept that triggers the improvement of cultural experience and the dubiety within aesthetical reasons. The notion of the visitor becoming a participant of artwork is against the aesthetic principles of fine art, which argues that this participatory activity can harm art. This paper provides an insight of both perspectives to balance the appropriate and pragmatic use of using game-elements in cultural institutions.

Keywords: gamification, cultural institutions, aesthetics, play, contemporary art

INTRODUCTION

A recent experience of games within a cultural institution is the Find the Future Game [1], especially designed by Jane McGonigal, and made its kick off on the 20th of May 2011 in the New York Public Library (NYPL). Find the Future was a one-time overnight adventure game inside the librarys building. The game takes place in an augmented place as it includes the following of virtual clues and online collaboration to accomplish the search of hidden real artifacts that are part of the librarys collection. Each clue could be shared and discussed within an online provided forum and the artifacts could be retrieved by scanning the QR code with the use of laptops and smart phones. Find the Future is an example of creating a participatory space of a cultural institution by constructing a game. In a weblog on Artsjournal, art journalist Judith Dobrzynski (2011) discusses the upcoming implementation of game elements within museums. What Dobryznski is referring to is the notion of gamification: the implementation of game elements within a non-gaming environment (Deterding et al. 2011).

Games create playful experiences by using existing resources in the areas where various disciplines intersect. Playfulness is becoming a powerful instrument and approach to help us overcome prevalant patterns and standards in culture, art, science, and technology *1+. The emergence of digital instruments or technologies becomes a particular kind of sites for activities that involve play and games as part of human cultures and societies (Myr 2008). In other words, play and games continue to develop in digital technological forms within our culture. According to Huizinga and McLuhan, games are the core element of culture, and functions as a social art that demands bodily involvement and mutual participation (Clarke & Mitchell 2007). According to Jane McGongial, writer of Reality is Broken, believes that the pragmatic use of games could mean a new participatory platform and collaboration environments within our culture (2011). If games are the core element of our culture, and are pragmatic stimulators of participation and collaboration, could they this be an incentive for cultural institution curators to incorporate these concepts in their programming? There exists popularity of games in our culture, and it stimulates participation between visitor and artwork, but it is still underdeveloped in the sphere of fine art (Coulter-Smith & Coulter-Smith 2006). Johan Huizinga, in Homo Ludens, states that *..+ a certain playfulness is by no means lacking in the process of creating and producing a work of art (1949:201). Although, Huizinga explains in certain art a strong play-element is fundamental, indeed, essential (ibid). An enkindled concept, which evokes the question if such a dynamic cultural place, and other cultural institutions in the world, are adherent to new technologies for improving cultural experience. This has opened up a new dimension within game studies, and a challening path for cultural institution curators to experiment with new innovate forms of games to reach visitors outside the white cube (Schavemaker et al. 2011) and create a place for play. The objective of this study is to provide insight into notion of implementing games in an augmented environment of cultural institutions as games are part of our culture and contribute to a increased participatory experience for the visitor, taking aesthetical issues and opinions of curators in consideration. Two interviews are taken with cultural supporter of new media Mediamatic, and Nederlands Instituut voor Mediakunst to get more insight into opinions about the balance between games and art.
[1] Find the Future 2011. Official website: http://game.nypl.org/#/

MECHANISM OF PLAY The gamification definition Deterding et al. (2011) represent an academic concept that is related to playful interaction. An important difference has to be made here when it comes to gameful and playful. The gamifing concept will advance playful behavior. In other words, the playfulness derives from a game. Dutch cultural historian, Johan Huizinga describes the importance of the play-element in all aspects of culture (including art) and society. He defines play between the lines of a free not serious activity and an activity that assimilates the player into own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules (Huizinga 1949:13). French sociologist Roger Caillois criticizes Huizingas definition of play as it is at the same time too broad and too narrow (Salen and Zimmerman 2006:123) and expands the definition by including a classification of games in a range of cultural forms. He defines play as a free, separate, uncertain, and unproductive activity that is governed by rules and creates a certain makebelieve (Salen and Zimmerman 2006:128). These classic definitions of play mechanism are related to player experience. According to Sicart, game mechanics include rules, challenges and emotions (Sicart 2008). The connection of challenges and emotions are facilitated and encouraged when a space is explored (Cook 2005). The importance of game mechanis are reflected in the notion of overcoming challenges (Sicart 2008). Challenge is found in the constant changing of contemporary cultural spaces. The physical context of a cultural space affects the behaviour and observation of a visitor. The following paragraph will focus on the dynamic spaces of cultural institutions in view of technological mechanisms. CULTURAL SPACES IN FLUX Wireless headsets perform acoustic spaces, three-dimensional shapes materialized on the museums flat facades creating virtual spatial planes, mobile installations inviting you to participate, eclectic artistic video presentations interact while you walk, and glitching visual artifacts reflecting the inherent malfunction of technology. And this all together, at one single spot in the middle of boosting capital Vienna, is highly regarded as one of the extreme complexes for contemporary art and culture in the world. The Museumsquartier (MQ) [2] in Vienna, where museums, student art exhibitions, and cultural insitutions come together, can be described as a living space characterized by art and creativity. This synergy makes the MQ a cultural cluster that continously redefines itself

with contemporary cultural influences. In other words, the MQ as physical place is in constant
[2] Museumsquartier 2011. Official website: http://www.mqw.at/

action and change. According to Manovich, technology is becoming more and more active within our physical spaces (Manovich 2006). Technologies such as images, graphics, audio and video installations augments the space. Augmentation is the layering of virtual data over physical space in reality, and according to Manovich opens the possiblity of constructing space into a place for play (ibid:9). Museums are continuously looking for ways their artifacts can be layerd with stories *..+ and reach visitors outside of the white cube (Schavemaker et al. 2011). Within cultural institutions, the aim of augmentation is to stimulate imagination and interactivity (Cabrera et al. 2005). The eighties encompass artistic installations, which engage with the physical space. The twenty-first century is the next step to make use of the entire space as a dynamic white cube and placing the visitor as a participant of artwork. Deconstruct the barrier between the viewer and the work of art (Brger 1984:53). Claire Bishop (2005), curator of Royal Collection of Art in London, explains that contemporary installation art provides the viewer to step into the artwork. In other words, with the available new technologies an interface is realized between the visitor and the artwork [3]. With this interface establishment everyone becomes part of the process of artwork, and thereby the performance is explained as a form of embodied interactivity with art (CoultierSmith & Coultier-Smith 2009). According to Peter Brger, art is connected to life-praxis and clears out the contraposition between artist and viewer (Brger 1984). Since the sixties, Fluxus Art [4] movement, influenced by Dada and Bauhaus, shares its philosophy of bringing art and everyday life together, fusing all artistic disciplines, and the idealism of everyone can be an artist. Celia Pearce illustrates in Games as Art the connection between Fluxus indeterminancy, collaboration, and open-endness, and contemporary art practices that is focussed on games as art medium. When it comes to contemporary art museums, visitors expect a total immersive and mysterious experience, which can create a feeling of lost and disorientation. The museum visit becomes a place of contrasts, and a challenged visit. WHY PEOPLE VISIT AND THE AFFILIATION WITH GAMIFICATION

Each person arrives the museum with a personal agenda, a set of expectations, and certain behaviour. Contemporary art museums challenges the visitors intelllectual skills. Especially when there is a difference between new visitors and frequent visitors in terms of knowledge
[3] http://clairebishopresearch.blogspot.com/ [4] http://fluxus.org/

and experiences. In the social context, museums are visited individually or with a group, which can affect the behaviour as well. The Interactive Experience Model is used for conceptualizing the museum experience, and takes the personal and social context into consideration (Falk & Dierking 1992). The following paragraph provides reasons why gamification can be used to optimalize a museums visit can be made. Gamification requires a rethinking of the role museums play in optimizing visitors exprience. 1. Games are fun! First of all, games are an important part of leisure time and an important factor to increase fun. According to McGonigal, games make us happy in terms of rewarding, which includes satisfaction, successful experience, social connection, and the change to mean something bigger than ourselves (McGonigal 2011). As games are an important part of leisure time, it could be a big competitor of cultural institutions, and therefore engagement of this games enthusiasm can motivate visitors to spend their leisure time at a museum. 2. Games are social Another reason is derived from the fact that cultural institutions are places to bring people together. This is the social aspect of gamication, and describes the motivation and enouragement to provoke cultural behaviour [5], collaboration between visitors, and the sharing of experiences. For example, My Guide [6] is an interactive guide specially designed for museums, whereby visitors can take pictures, tag, and make notes of a particular artwork. The captured experience can be shared on social networks, with the artists itself, or museum curator. According to McGongical, gameful activities are reality-changing (McGonigal 2011). Visitors make a positive impact and transformation on the institutionals space through participation. The participatory activity of tagging extends the museum experience by supplementing artworks background and provide retrieval for related information. This activity of experience extension is the third reason: games are knowledge contributors. 3. Games are knowledge contributors.. and rewarding

Games can contribute to knowledge extension. The game design creates more exploration into artwork, and new areas of the museum, but also diminishes the feeling of lacking expertise (Klopfer et al. 2005) This can be implied as an intrinsic reward. The intrinsic reward put forward by mechanics of game constitutes an intellectual engagement with artwork and exhibitions. Intellectual engagement includes the possibility of a learning process, which
[5] Gamification.de 2011. Official website: www.gamification.de [6] My Guide. Description on: http://www.mediamatic.net/page/164614/en

involves around acquisition but might also include a change of feeling or perspective (Birchal & Henson 2011). According to McGonigal, humans crave for the experience of being good at something, and the chance to be part of something bigger (2011). Therefore, the museum visit is challenged as visitors obtain and enrich their cultural knowledge. As an institution for knowledge, and the obtaining and maintaining of cultural resources, cultural institutions function as a place for cultural heritage. The maintainance of cultural heritage is an important future process for the next generation but also for this generation living in a digital culture. The last reason for embracing gamification in cultural institutions is the presence of a digital culture. 4. Games are cultural artifacts Due to digital technology our culture is characterized with words as openness, flexibility, shifts and modifications. The effects of digital culture cause a shifting perspective of cultural institutions from a closed and static repository for art to a dynamic place where new technologies and art are intertwined. A research of Martijn Stevens, a university lecturer in Cultural Studies of Radboud University Nijmegen, focusses on the manifestations of digital culture and art museums. As Stevens argues, the combination of museums and digital culture can cause two opposite effects: on the one side the museums have to stay how they are and present themselves as a space where art can be exhibited in its original state, but on the other side if museums are open for adjustment into digitalization it can yield new perspectives and curiosity from visitors [7]. Gamification can be a threshold for cultural institutions as it can harm the aesthetics of fine art. Characteristics of games - entertainment, and high level of participation and engagement - are not always shared with fine art (Clarke & Mitchell 2007). Another argument is the contradiction to the principle of fine art museums where talking and communication while interacting with the artwork is a no go. This means that the adventure in the museum is a private way-finding experience. The appreciation of games as as a form of art is a discussible fact and involves around the notion of low culture (Pearce 2006). To bring more light into the balance between games

and art, interviews were taken with with cultural supporter of new media Mediamatic, and Nederlands Instituut voor Mediakunst.

[7] Martijn Stevens 2010. Virtuele Herinnering: Kunstmedia in een Digitale Cultuur. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. http://www.ru.nl/letteren/actueel/nieuws/redactionele/richt_je_eigen/@747496/musea_in_een/

AESTHETICS OF GAMIFICATION Mediamatic is an online project, and social network that contributes to recent facts and new about new media and cultural activities. Nederlands Instituut voor Mediakunst (NIvM) To the question To what extent do you think gamification is an important value in our culture? Mediamatic agreed it is an important value, while NIvM thought it had a less value. For The Netherlands, innovation is an aspect of our culture, and innovation deals a lot with game-related concepts (Mediamatic 2011). Although, both institutions agreed that gamification is a degradation of culture. It can have a negative influence on the experience of art as it removes the attention away from its natural purpose (NIvM 2011). This is in line with Klopfer et al. 2005 who argues that technological implementations can isolate the visitor from their surroundings and the museums artifacts (2005). In an education context, both believed that gamification can have a positive effect on the increase of knowledge and supply of extra information. In a personal level related to art, both argued that gamification can embed a better understanding, and sustain more credit and reliance. Art become more personal, and therefore more valuable (Mediamatic 2011). Although, NIvM adds an extra argument on the personal level, arguing that gamification can require more skills. Mediamatic argues against and believes the level of participation is depended by the visitor self. As discussed before, a low entry level is one of the game mechanisms and in definition of play an important aspect. The interviews revealed two factors of gamification: social and the cultural factor. The social factor includes the valuable importance of gamification within museums as a way of personalizing but in the cultural factor demonstrated a slight feeling of less appreciation when it comes to the conservation of culture and artistic principles. CONCLUSION

If we had reasons before to bring socio-cultural factors into the frame, those are further intensified by gamifications context (Khaled 2011:2). Games have become part of the cultural capital and a popular area of academic research. This paper has contextualized games in terms of approach, understanding, and apprecitation, thereby providing an explorative view of gamification in non-gaming environments. Due to the dynamic relationship between games and contemporary art practices, cultural institutions will open up for the possibilities in gamification for several reasons. One of the reasons is to transform the passive visitor into an active participant, thereby increasing the engagement with the visitor more deeply and broadly in cultural resources. Gamification makes extensions. First, the broadening of knowledge into cultural resources by providing supplementary and related information. Secondly, the cultural experiences is extended as the visit is continued outside the white cube. Finding a balance between visitors reasons for going to a museum, beholding the aesthetic concept of cultural institutions, and cultural expectations of both parties within gamification. The contemporary frame indicates that the line between game and culture becomes blurrier, and will enter the thresholds of cultural institutions. The question is, if cultural institutions are ready to open the door. IMPLICATIONS This paper focus was within a contemporary frame including new technologies involved around digital culture. Limiting to digital technology would be an unnecessary constraint (Deterding et al. 2011:2). Further research can include traditional games in gamification. LITERATURE Birchall, Danny., and Henson, Martha. 2011. Gaming the museum. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2011. Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/papers/gaming_the_museum Brger, Peter. 1984. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cabrera, Jorge, S., Henar M. Fruto, Adrian G. Stoica, Nikolaos Avouris, Yannis Dimitriadis, Georgios Fioktas, and Katerina D. Liven 2005. Mystery in the Museum: Collaborative Learning Activities using Handheld Devices. Proceedings of Mobile HCI September 19-22, Salzburg, Austria. Clarke, & Mitchell. 2007. Videogames and Art. Bristol: Intellect Books.

Coulter-Smith, Elizabeth, and Coulter-Smith, Graham. 2009. Mapping Outside the Frame: Interactive and Locative Art Environments 49-64. Digital Visual Culture: Theory and Practice [ed. Bentkowska-Kafel, Anna, Cashen, Trish, and Gardiner, Hazel]. Computers and the History of Art 3. Bristol, England: Intellect Books. Deterding, Sebastian, Rilla Khaled, Lennart Nacke E., and Dan Dixton. 2011. Gamification: Towards a Definition. Proceedings of HCI May 7-12. Vancouver, Canada. Dobrzynski, Judith. 2011. The Next New Thing: Gamification at Museums. Artsjournal [Weblog]. http://www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts/2011/04/engagement-via-games.html Falk, John H. & Dierking, Lynn D. 1992. The Museum Experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books. Huizinga, Johan. 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge. Kim, Jeffrey Y., Jonathan P. Allen, and Elan Lee. 2008. Alternate Reality Gaming. Communications of the ACM 51 (2). 36-42. Khaled, Rilla. 2011. Its Not Just Whether You Win or Lose: Thoughts on Gamification and Culture. Proceedings of HCI May 7-12. Vancouver, Canada. Klopfer, Eric, Judy Perry, Kurt Squire, and Jan Ming-Fong. 2005. Mystery at the Museum: a Collaborative Game for Museum Education. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. McGonigal, Jane. 2011. Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. London: Jonathan Cape. Myr, Frans. 2008. An Introduction to Game Studies. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Pearce, Celia. 2006. Games as Art: The Aesthetics of Play. Visible Language 40 (1). 66-88. Salen, Katie, and Zimmerman, Eric. 2006. Roger Caillois: The Definition of Play, The Classification of Games, 120-155. The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Schavemaker, Margriet, Hein Wils, Paul Stork, and Ebelien Pondaag. 2011. Augmented Reality and the Museum Experience. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2011. Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/papers/augmented_reality_museum_experienc e Sicart, Miguel. 2008. Defining Game Mechanics. Game Studies 8 (2). n.p.