Is a Mexican artist, who works with performative structures, and I will show uses the Magic Circle and changes to the Lusory threshold to at times disrupt existing game structures, to create aesthetic metaphors which often include risk and the chance of disaster, physically affecting the principle of the Magic Circle as a safe space. Artigas work is filled with political comment through the geographical areas and the groups he engages with. He has expressed an interest in Punk, and relates Duchamp to Sid Vicious (2006) Much of his work is international, working through residencies and worldwide art expos and events. Some of his work, fits into Flanagan’s concept of reskinning (2013) , of artists reconfigure existing games, such as Yoko Ono’s White chess and three sided football, so this could be seen as a recalibration of the Lusory attitude, the rules that govern the gameplay agreed upon by the participants. Hutchinson writes, ‘Since the early nineties, Gustavo has structured his projects around the notions of “the inevitable essence” and “the unexpected” as well as the possibility of participating in games that produce baffling answers to certain preconceived actions within a given social context’ (2010) Artigas talks about setting up the game without knowing the outcomes, (2006) which is for Juul (2005) and other game theorists a defining feature of a game, the unknowability, which is also a factor for Bourdieau Relational theory, (1998) and that an artist creates the factors for an artwork, a set of relations without fully knowing what will come from it. In Ball Game (2007), Artigas changes the angle of the basketball net, from horizontal to vertical which makes the hoop now resemble more the goal of an ancient Mayan game he has researched. This will create responses in the players who must work together to overcome the new game dynamic, to renegotiate the Lusory Attitude. This moves competitive play to the idea of DeKoven and ‘the Well Played Game’ (2013) as players try to understand together, and work around these new game dynamics. Ball game uses the Magic Circle to undermine and change the normal rules of play, that the artists’ game requires a different aspect of play to the organised sport. Artiga creates a disjunctive context, the change of angle affecting the whole urban play space with a surreal complication that the video recording plays upon. The players have to come together to decide upon a course of action to accommodate the small change. It needs an aesthetic change to go from sport to game, and this is provided by the angling of the net. A further examination of the context sees that this work is set in a deprived area of Chicago and Artiga worked with a local health organisation that tries to induce a healthy lifestyle in the area. The players accommodating the change of angle and their humour and co-operation goes against the image usually associated with groups in that area. (2009)
Arriata (2002) describes Artigas ‘Rules of the Game.(2000) ‘When the opening whistle blew, two Tijuana high school soccer teams and two San Diego basketball teams took to the court to play their respective sports simultaneously. Nothing was missing: two sets of referees, two squads of vivacious cheerleaders, and, of course, two hoops and two goals.’ This is for a festival called, insite2000, that looks at two border cities, san Diego and Tijuana, separated by the dilapidated corrugated border fence with aspirations towards being a wall. Artigus came up with a visually exciting work the uses the Magic Circle of play to disrupt the professionalism of the sporting event, changing a sport into a game, into a relational work. This game performance was accompanied by cheerleaders and an award ceremony and sports announcers all the signifying system of the two sports. No rehearsal beforehand was undertaken to keep the competition and surprise as real as possible. The critic Christopher Knight (200) records the enthusiasm of the crowd and the excitement of the activity as the goals were under the hoop nets and teams charged up and down the court, dodging and weaving the two games happening simultaneously. This was a metaphor to be seen in action, an event that showed how different groups can co exist. The circle here was strong, the boundary robust, a sense of absurdism overtaking the uniformity of the normal gym area and dressing it with the liveliness of something other. The Magic Circle here generates a sense of fun through these new rules, allowing the Lusory attitude to make two sports even harder by combining them into one Magic Circle of play. In this way also the Circle is able to strengthen the idea that the activity is separate from the world, the normal concerns of wining and training from sport, is supplanted by the fun and joy of just avoiding being hit by two fast moving teams and balls, undermining the normal seriousness of the sporting experience. All including the audience are drawn into the game and play their part, the cheerleaders and the audience are involved. Here is Caillois idea of mimicry and role play, as they cheer for their perspective teams, but in a removed way, aware that the scene before them is ridiculous and they cheer as much for the surrealist spectacle as the teams in play. Here the Well Played game comes to the fore, as the two different sports try to work together to navigate the Same Magic Circle. The drawn boundary lines in the gym, give way to the bleachers and the audience so all is drawn into the role play of the Circle experience, the work a metaphor for the two cities in which the festival takes place. Sport as Suits shows in his work on the lusory attitude (1978) contains the element of obstacles created to make the task harder, golf in an example of this. Artigas takes the already lusory aspects of the games and adds additional lusory levels to further remove the competition between the teams and advance the level of difficulty involved in performing the tasks at hand, and creates a performative spectacle. A second part of the work moves the Magic Circle into an exterior location, this time against the drab border fence itself. Artigas erects his own wall in front of and higher than part of the dividing border fence, and a playing field is drawn out and a basketball hoop installed on the Tijuana side, in a spot where migrants normally come together before attempting to cross over. Local resident then enter the Circle,and play the game of basketball that they know, with occasionally the ball going over the fence to the other side, a metaphor for the migrants who attempt the crossing. The players climb and jump the fence to get their ball back repeatedly. Here the play once more in the Circle is the centre of the aesthetic, while playing with accepted rules, known beforehand, the siting of the Magic Circle before the fence conjures up a disjunctive effect between the joy engaged by the participants in the basketball game and the fence that stands ominously behind them, with the added danger that they may lose the ball if it goes over the fence. This has an echo of children playing in a back garden where occasionally the ball will cross over to the neighbours. The Magic Circle gameplay makes the wall framing it seem overtly negative as it intrudes into the joyful trouble free game, the aesthetic of the game itself creates a critical response, Flanagan (2013) in her paper on locative games in urban areas see games as ‘critical frameworks’ and that the area the game is played in sets up a network of meaning. The video documentation from this work has shown widely, and Artigas has said how he considers the recording ‘a second life’ (2004) for the work.
Jennifer Teets writes about Artigas interest in what is and is not a game, the boundary of play. A strong use of the Magic circle, but disrupting it though dark and brink play is Artigas work Viva Le Resistance, (2004) this work has aspects of the liminal working within the Magic Circle construct, of passing over and through, of initiation and ritual coming full circle back to Huizinga’s original idea for the circle. Nick Bazier (2010) sees the work as having elements of the trials people undertake to enter a street gang. The Magic Circle is physically created In an outdoor courtyard, by participants who make a closed circle by holding hands. Then one grasps an electric current, which is sent around the circle. This causes a slight and steady shock that makes the participants squirm and laugh, the participant who releases first, breaking the circle, is the loser. Thelaman (2012) writes ‘ This playful configuration briefly cancels out our guilty participation by superimposing the perception of the game over reality, It’s a game, just a game and nothing more.’ This work relates to the ‘Brink of the Magic Circle’ (2007), the play within the Circle having an element of sanctioned danger, while still cloaked by the security of game play, the physical pain causing visible excitement in the participants of authorised danger. Here the brink of the Magic Circle allows those inside his game to test their mettle and ability to endure the shock. In joining hands creating the Magic Circle they also enable the danger, it is almost a reversal of the Magic Circle rules, as safety is only restored when the circuit of the circle is broken. This work has Caillois idea of competition, and some aspects of Vertigo. It is a game that challenges the participants not only against each other, but against themselves and their pain threshold. It has elements of critical play as it upsets the normal idea of hand holding in a circle that can be seen as a uniting idea, one of friendship, here is turned into the loop that allows the current to charge. Sally O’Reilly writing in Contemporary (2017) ‘His evocation of disaster and risk dissolves the often hermetic realms of games and art, investing them with the mercurial essence of real life drama’ He brings an artful aesthetic and sense of danger to the gameful design elements he utilises. Further Brink play, in the work ‘Artists Shit’ Artiga utilises a survivalist trick as his website says, that allows a tin to be whacked down onto a finger, and the finger is unhurt while the can buckles. In the video work as described by Jonathan Griffin (2008) in his review of the show games and Theory ‘ A group of people nervously take it in turns to slam a tin can down over their finger, which they hold on the edge of a table. Seemingly miraculously, each time the side of the can buckles leaving the finger is unhurt. The trick requires commitment, however; it is a game of trust, both in the artist–referee and in the fellow players. The result is not just the shared surprise and wonder at the can buckling so easily, but temporary social cohesion among a group of people who were prepared to take part. This has elements of the Well played game as well, with a social aspect emerging from the participants as they help each other overcome fear in undertaking the task.
In ‘Vote for Demolition’, (2013) Artigas works, to find the six worst buildings in Los Angeles, and sets in motion a competition where people can vote for which building should be demolished. The winning building that is voted for, forms part of an application to the council for its destruction along with a computer animation showing the building being destroyed. In this way the entire town is ensnared in the Magic Circle, are drawn into the game. The buildings around those playing become pawns in the game, for people to choice which shall be removed. The game changes how people see the town, empowers them. A choice of six building that he came to through research are presented ad choices and people can vote online through a website, or through voting booths erected around the city. Juul (2005) in his definition of games sees competitions as border games, as not full games with player mechanics. Though this competition does have elements of skill and decision making, as a player has to choose the building to use and give a reason. Though this is a game with real world consequences, which is outside the original remit of the Magic circle, as a demand for demolition is put in to the council and could be successful.
Bibliography
Gustavo Artigas 2006 interview. 2006. Nuevoedge.com.
ANTOINE THELAMON, 2010. GUSTAVO ARTIGAS »ANTOINE THE LAMON. The “Idea of Risk”.
ARRIATA and EURIDICE, 2002. Artist in Conversation. Bomb, (78),.
ARTIGAS and GUSTAVO, 10/09/, 2009-last update, Game, risk, disaster. Available: http://videolectures.net/mit4303f06_artigas_lec10/ [Mar 14, 2017].
ARTIGAS and GUSTAVO, 2007. Ball Game. Chicago: Museum of Contemporary art.
ARTIGAS and GUSTAVO, 2004. Viva Le Resistance. Toulouse France: L’ecole des Beux-Arts.
BATZNER and NIKE, 20th December, 2010-last update, Artigas’ Blog. Available: https://gustavoartigas.wordpress.com/ [Mar 13, 2017].
CHATTOPADHYAY, C., , InSITE 2000 – ArtNexus. Available: http://www.artnexus.com/Notice_View.aspx?DocumentID=4136 [Mar 12, 2017].
CINDY, P., 2007. Critical Potential on the Brink of the Magic Circle, 2007, The University of Tokyo.
DE KOVEN, B., 2013. The well-played game: A player’s philosophy. MIT Press.
GÓMEZ, R., HAYES, E. and SOLÍS, C., 2009. Escultura Social: A New Generation of Art from Mexico City. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, 31(94), pp. 170-185.
HUTCHISON and ALICE, 2010. Toxic Paints. gustavoartigas.com.
JENNIFER TEETS, 2003-last update, Gustavo Artigas. Available: http://www.kfda.be/en/program/gustavo-artigas [Mar 14, 2017].
JUUL, J., 2005. Half–Real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
KNIGHT, C., 2000, October 21,. Side by Side. Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035.
O’REILLY and SALLY, 2004. on conflict spectacle and Disaster. Contermporary, (66),.
ORHAN AYYUCE, 2/09/, 2009-last update, Vote for Demolition. Available: http://uk.archinect.com/news/article/91682/vote-for-demolition [Mar 13, 2017].
SUITS, B.H. and NEWFELD, F., 1978. The grasshopper.
research 