I gave a talk titled Playful Smoothness: The Other Side of Science in the City at the CCi conference as I mentioned before. One of the questions came from Jason Potts, who’s been working on the economic side of things within a broad domain of Creative Industries at CCi - I find his research very interesting (see some of his writings here) though I usually try to stay away from writing about economy and politics (i’m sure they can be very exciting but right now there are many, many, and many other things that are more interesting and appealing to me to write about).

His question was whether we could have systematic approach to ‘play’ - in other words, could we provoke an occurrence of play in a systematic manner? I responded with the acknowledgement that it is actually impossible for us to grasp the notion of play with our existing conceptual framework so ’systematizing’ play or rather bringing play into play may not be a productive thing - it’s simply impossible. And our attempt at that process should be considered as a ‘game’ not play in its entirety. In that respect, my answer was no, it’s not play (it’s a part of it - conceptually subordinate to play). What I didn’t mention was Caillois’s notion of the ludus and paidia continuum; a game, as a form of play that involves operative rules (governing system) it’s a ludic form of play and yes, in that respect, we can in fact systematise the process of play. Furthermore, in order to nurture creativity, and particularly innovation, the interplay of ludic and paidic play is crucial. As I argued, the space where we play is in the seam of fantasy and reality: the folding of re/deterritorialization. And that’s exactly where the space for creativity can be found. On a pragmatic level - designing such a system or control mechanism - what’s accentuated here is the need for an idling space (as Yeun Bae Kim - at Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology - mentioned as the most crucial element to provoke ‘fun’ in HCI during my interview with him; and also seen in the case of play activities such as parkour, which can be perceived as a userled spatial reproduction).

Humans, by default - for ontological security as I argued in the paper - look for ways to create an idling space, a playground where creativity can flourish. Such a place is built, sustained, and destoryed then rebuilt with creativity itself. To better support this human aspect we must avoid a monopolic configuration, which is something hard to achieve today, so on a more practical level, we should avoid an oligopolic system when it comes to creative industries. In this respect, I support what can be called a micronodal system - a dynamic network economy of micronodes (such as SMEs and individuals). And I’ve been long excited by microeconomic developments and a firm believer in the notion of ‘patient capital’ (see Jacqueline Novogratz’s article here).

Network technologies speed things up. No doubt about that. However, making a transformation, not a trend or a quick wave, takes patience as it involves an en masse of individual conceptual and action inputs. The majority rule still prevails today for a collective change but the size of the majority gets bigger in a network society as people have means to continue debating and even hindering the transactional channels of the action node/s for the change. And of course, we see a greater potential in creating positive transformations for the world. Therefore we need access to more creative minds and share ideas to move forward together. I believe in Bataille’s notion of economy that on a macro-level we as humanity have an inherent ‘excess’ and therefore must share/obliterate it for a peaceful continuation of humanity.

So then what can we do to create not an impossible smooth utopia but a stimulating playground for us? Here I suggest a term playpolis to loosely refer to an ideal form of urban environment: a seductive, sustainable, and creative city of integrative techno-social networks. A systematic approach - politics most importantly in this context - should ensure that small nodes can actively be connected in the bigger network and that there is an idling space in the place of interaction (localised contexutalisation and entrepreneurality of informal economy for example) while very importantly, ensuring the environmental sustainability. We know that environment vs economy is a stupid comparison. Writing this on a beach of Lesvos, I can’t feel more strongly about this.

And thanks for asking the question Jason :)

This entry was posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pm and is filed under play, talk. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.