Space As A Keyword

I read David Harvey's essay, Space As A Keyword, a paper which (especially in the first half) covers a lot of content about definitions and representations of space. Below are some sections I picked out that I thought could be of particular use.

“If we regard space as absolute it becomes a “thing in itself” with an existence independent of matter. It then possesses a structure which we can use to pigeon-hole or individuate phenomena. The view of relative space proposes that it be understood as a relationship between objects which exists only because objects exist and relate to each other. There is another sense in which space can be viewed as relative and I choose to call this relational space - space regarded in the manner of Leibniz, as being contained in objects in the sense that an object can be said to exist only insofar as it contains and represents within itself relationships to other objects.” pg2

Absolute: Physical, Euclidean

Relative: Our own perception of space influenced by our own experience of time, distance and other factors such as social convention or emotion.

Relational: A subspace of relative space used to discuss the relationship between two objects or energies which interact with one another.

Harvey bases his ideas of those of Lefebvre but uses his own definitions of absolute, relative and relational space to discuss the concept. To me, the short comings of Harvey's ideas are that he makes no account for imagined space. This space is important in relation to interactive spaces as it is very much the imagination which 'fills in the blanks' of a constructed world. What could be useful is how these ideas could be applied to virtual space. His emphasis on the interconnectedness of time and space and the notion of processes creating their own spacial frames is in my mind, exactly what a virtual space entails as it is the relationship between the player and virtuality which creates an entirely new world in itself:

"The relational view of space holds there is no such thing as space outside of the processes that define it. Processes do not occur in space but define their own spatial frame." pg4

"it is impossible to disentangle space from time" pg4

We are not empirically defining space in its entirety, I believe such is beyond the bounds both what we as humans can imagine as well as what we are capable of expressing through language. What we are doing is conceptualising and compartmentalising aspects of space into different spheres, different sets of relationships so that we may better understand the role of space in relation to our own lives. Such descriptions are never exclusive, the energies of each are overlapping and multiple. In fact, what we call space is not really space at all, only our own ideas of what we believe it to be. Space is relational, it can never be filled just as it can never be empty, it is transformative, social and political - space is unfathomable.

"space is neither absolute, relative or relational in itself, but it can become one or all simultaneously depending on the circumstances. The problem of the proper conceptualization of space is resolved through human practice with respect to it. In other words, there are no philosophical answers to philosophical questions that arise over the nature of space - the answers lie in human practice. The question “what is space?” is therefore replaced by the question “how is it that different human practices create and make use of different conceptualizations of space?” The property relationship, for example, creates absolute spaces within which monopoly control can operate. The movement of people, goods, services, and information takes place in a relative space because it takes money, time, energy, and the like to overcome the friction of distance. Parcels of land also capture benefits because they contain relationships with other parcels….in the form of rent relational space comes into its own as an important aspect of human social practice.”
pg5

In the context of a virtual space, worlds are constructed via representation. I can draw an image of a tree, it is in no way an actual tree but as an audience we can relate the pixelated shape to its real life representation. Harvey considers the ways in which spaces beyond the physical may be represented:

"We can reasonably assume that the elements, moments and events in that world are constituted out of a materiality of stable and finite qualities. How we represent this world is an entirely different matter, but here too we do not conceive of or represent space in arbitrary ways, but seek some appropriate if not accurate reflection of the material realities that surround us through abstract representations (words, graphs, maps, diagrams, pictures, etc.). But Lefebvre, like Benjamin, insists that we do not live as material atoms floating around in a materialist world; we also have imaginations, fears, emotions, psychologies, fantasies and dreams. These spaces of representation are part and parcel of the way we live in the world. We may also seek to represent the way this space is lived through emotions and the imagination. The spatiotemporality of a dream, a fantasy, a hidden longing, a lost memory or even a peculiar thrill as we walk down a street can be given representation through works of art." pg8

In an interactive space the audience has a direct influence on the space which they perceive and because of this extra dimension of experience I wonder how some of the personal spaces which Harvey considers (emotions, fantasy, fears, imagination) may be expressed to a greater level or simply a different level to what can/has been achieved in a linear virtual space. 

Harvey, D. Space As A Keyword, Marx and Philosophy Conference, 29 May 2004, London
http://frontdeskapparatus.com/files/harvey2004.pdf

I Remember The Rain

This is my latest project, enjoy:

Download

I Remember The Rain is an interactive story with mechanisms firmly rooted in video game convention and aesthetic. I wanted to use the landscape of this platform as a means to deliver  a narrative and a sense of character that would not normally be expected from the medium with the intention of making these elements all the more potent.

Although the interactions of IRTR are simple, the space of the project is deep. Only 3 buttons are used in the game, the arrow keys move the character left and right while the spacebar triggers interaction and events. These mechanics were intentional in their simplicity so that the interface of interaction would not become a barrier in the player's connection to the virtual world as well as allowing for greater accessibility to a wider audience. 

I decided quite early on that I wanted to have the characters in the game voiced, partly because I haven’t really seen this done in games of this type but most importantly as a way to humanise the characters. By giving the protagonist a voice, the audience can better relate to the character and becomes deeper immersed in the virtual world. Like spoken voices, audio as a whole was a focus of the work, juxtaposing the retro, minimalistic aesthetics with a deep and layered soundscape to bring to life the world: footsteps, the sound of birds, the wipers of the car – all subtle elements that draw the audience into the reality of the interactive space.

More on this later!

Journey

Journey is a Playstation 3 game developed by Thatgamecompany and although I haven't had the chance to play the game the whole way through, what I did experience was impacting enough for me to look further into it. A friend showed me an interview with Jenova Chen, the game's designer. His ideas of video games as art and the power and presentation of interactivity really resonate with what I myself have been thinking about.

Journey is minimalistic, both in its visual style and in its mechanics. There is no HUD (heads up display) indicating any information to the player about their status or which buttons to press. This relieves player of the omnipotent framework that video games tend to construct around themselves, allowing one to experience the work in a purer, more cinematic form.

"For the minimalist interface design we do in TGC games, we believe that the best interface and game design should be based on human instinct, rather than gaming knowledge.


If a child, a non-gamer, can interact with our game, a gamer should be able to as well. Just think about the whole process of an online console game – lobby, latency, hosting, kicking. None of these concepts are intuitive to a non-gamer."

By constructing mechanisms of interaction to be assessable, the work's mood, themes, atmosphere and narrative can be delivered with a greater potency as the reception of these forces is not restricted by a player's background and remains untainted by obtuse, constant reminders that the the world which is being experienced is in fact virtual. If even on some minor, conscious or subconscious level, an audience just for a moment forgets that they are interfacing with a virtual environment, then surely the affective nature of that environment becomes all the more effective.

Something which intrigued me about Journey is that during the game, players can encounter one another but the way in which interaction occurs is quite different from what we have come to expect from other online games. There is no chat window way to communicate through words and no indication of who might be behind the screen:

"For the lack of online ID, chat and voice, to create an emotional bond between the two online players, we have to create an atmosphere and mood so that when the two meet in the game, they are willing to do it.

We created a world where the rules and values are very different from reality. Your avatar doesn't have arms or mouth, so players should buy into the fiction that they can't speak human language or punch each other. If you see the player's online ID – for example, 'HairyKnuckle1991' – it instantly takes you out of the fiction"

Journey is a game by definition, though its own website prefers to term it as "an interactive parable". The word 'game' is so broad, we seem to define media under this umbrella by certain mechanics of interaction but it seems obvious to me that not everything which is interactive has to be a game. It is through this way of thinking that I believe the potential of such medium can be further explored and new possibilities of the way in which we present stories, ideas and experiences can be developed.

Botanicula

Botanicula is an adventure game from Czetch developers Amanita Design. The basic story follows a group of insects escaping from and eventually confronting an army of shadow creatures who are sucking the life out of the natural world. The player experiences this universe by using the mouse to travel to new areas, to solve puzzles and interact with different creatures and objects. What I found immediately striking about this is that unlike most games in the point and click adventure genre there are not one but five protagonists, each of equal importance. This situates the experience in an interesting context as you play the role of a guide as opposed to an absolute controller. Interaction is entirely contextual, the party of insects can not be moved around manually, instead reacting to other actions and changes in the environment. It is these environments that really sold the game to me because the aesthetics of Botanicula are simply amazing. The world itself is teeming with life, the art work is beautiful as well as original in style and execution. These visuals are enhanced by the quirky and spontaneous soundscape which brings to life the creatures and environments.

Beyond the game itself I find Botanicual to be also worth mentioning due to it's financial success. The game debuted through Humble Bundle, a short term 'pay what you want' site which turned over $822,356 USD. This figure doesn't include sales outside of this promotion so I imagine the profits would be a lot higher as well. It's cool that an independant developer can make that kind of money purley through online distribution.

Postmodern Space

Why is it useful to consider post-modernity in an analysis of space?

Post-modern space can be described as:
-Spatial variety over short distances
-Local instead of regional architecture
-Space is not thought as an emptiness to be filled, it is never a stage or background
-Multi-layered

"(the post-modern) is a view of the world that emphasises openness to a range of perspectives in social inquiry, artistic expression, and political empowerment" Knox Marston, 2004

"socially constructed worlds that are simultaneously material and representational"
Critical Spatiality and the Uses of Theory  Jon L. Berquist  AAR/SBL Constructions of Ancient Space Seminar  October 2002. www.cwru.edu/affil/GAIR/papers/2002papers/berquist.html

There are a lot of different definitions of what these spaces could be referred to as well as the words used to describe them. Soja (channeling Lefebvre) calls them Perceived, Conceived and Lived spaces. I've found ways used to describe these spaces to be slightly confusing, my biggest issue being that of perceived space. This first space exists beyond perception (it is there whether anyone is around to experience it or not). I have also seen it noted as being 'physical', 'visual' and 'concrete', all words which seem contradictory. I think that sound would inhabit first space and that is not something remotely visual or concrete. In a similar way, light doesn't seem particularly physical. 

First Space:

• Empirical
• Beyond visual
• Beyond conciousness
• Physical (but not necessarily?)
• ABSOLUTE

Second Space:

• A first and third space imagined
• Mental
• Concious
• RELATIVE

Third Space:

• Social overlays
• Experiential
• Exists in both first and second space
• Unconscious
• Lived
• RELATIVE

(Empirical Space, Imagined Space and Experiential Space?)

What I noticed about these spaces is that first space is absolute, it exists beyond any human experience or interpretation where as second and third spaces are constructed by our own perception of this space.

In my studies I am primarily concerned with the construction of interactive spaces in the virtual world. So to then think about how such definitions of space can be applied to this dimension raises some interesting questions. To me, such a point transcends the interactivity of space itself in that this space, interactive or otherwise, operates under the same umbrella of virtuality. A screen itself exists in first space but the 'virtual space' which we experience is both imagined and socially constructed. I however feel that this digital space exceeds the definition of second and third because the game space of a world (although socially formed) is also absolute in its construction.

Virtual Space is postmodernist because it can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways by an infinite number of individuals. These individual interpretations are formed from a lived space, they are shaped by social and political factors that become trended in similar groups of people. It is in this way that affective maps can be created and triggered, interactive space is designed from the creators experience of the world and their understanding of how the ways in which people from this world can be affected.

This makes me wonder exactly how we would define a cinematic, animated or interactive space. These are spaces within spaces, just as within a room can exist in a drawer or cupboard entailing a space of its own, so too does a virtual world exist within the space from which we perceive it. It is a sub space, a deep space. I feel like there is still more thinking to be done on this because unlike a drawer or cupboard the screen takes our perception to an entirely different place.

If the modernist view point only accounts for two spaces and the post-modernist approach produces a third, is it not then entirely possible that a fourth space could be conceived? In beginning to conceptualise such a space, it is perhaps useful to ask questions of it that we have already used to define the spaces of the postmodern world. Is this space relative or absolute? Is it socially constructed or beyond human perception? Does it require us to rethink the properties of already presumed spaces?

Can we as humans perceive a pure first space? That is, experience first space without the social overlay of the third?

Space In Fall Up

Since having finished my last project Fall Up To The Sky, I have had time to think about some of the implications that my own work may have in regards to the construction of interactive spaces. The first thing which came to mind is the mapping of affective triggers. The space of Fall Up  is undoubtedly thick, yet at the same time possesses a simple, two dimensional aesthetic which makes analysis of the work both approachable as well as concise. 

The first significant affective trigger is when the cage falls onto the player leaving them trapped. Up until this point there have been no dangers or even any other moving objects to interact with so this event comes as a shock - its effects intensified by the player's current expectations of the game space. Like the cage falling, there is a later part where hands extend from the walls and reach for the player - its affectivness born again from shock through the deconstruction of expectation. Remembering that affect is a constant, cyclic process, it is important to note that the agency of the games elements are operating throughout it is just that these elements are particularly notable for their reaction. Perhaps it is just that emotions such as shock are just more outwardly apparent?

Most of the games challenges are to do with precision and mastering the mechanics of the space so it is interesting to consider a particular level where the exit lies right in front of the player but as they approach, walls materialise and block the way. The experience of game play thus far suggests that there must be a way to slip through before they close, perhaps you need to approach from a certain angle? The solution is considerably simpler and involves merely walking to the side where a new passage is revealed. There is a definite sense of frustration garnered from this obstacle and a certain sense of disappointment when the correct path is discovered, as if a cruel trick has just been unleashed on the player. In the same way, harder sections of the game were also notable in the frustration that they produced, an affect which like, shock, is outwardly obvious.

In a sense, Fall Up is quite generic in that it closely follows video game conventions (stages, enemies etc), the greatest innovation would be that the player has the power to control gravity. It is this ability to manipulate a force that would normally be impossible to effect that gives an illusionary sense of control to the player. It is this wider expectation set out by similar game spaces which is reterritorialised. Most of the elements in the game are in fact uncontrollable, you cannot shift walls, move many of the dangers or disrupt any other prewritten mechanics but it is through the ability to effect a few small components such as some of the games creatures or dust particles on the floor which satisfies the player with a sense of power. Like my thoughts on the construction of space in Portal, the space of Fall Up is still very much restrained, there is only one path to follow and although you can move freely through this space, it is a space still defined by the boundaries of a single screen. The sense of freedom and wonder allowed is based entirely on the players understanding that gravity is not a force that they are normally able to control and the subversion of this commandment. 

In other news, I'm working on a new project which is about half done, more details on that later!

Fall Up To The Sky

Or download the game (windows only but more stable)

The purpose of this project was both to better familiarise myself with the software that I'm using as well as explore methods of interaction and the generation of affect. Ironically, most of my research thus far has been about breaking convention in interesting ways yet I've gone and made something which in essence, is a fairly generic video game. I still want to explore these ideas but this is a good starting point to develop from as it has allowed me to program simple mechanics in an environment where I'm not overly concerned with the story yet.