Realise I think that you can’t really have a game where live musicians play the same music over and over, it becomes monotonous if they are live. You can have some kind of digital game like that but eventually musicians will tire of doing this. Musicians complained half way in that they want to play the whole tune and had become frustrated playing small snippets. My observations show it needs some other mechanic I think beyond what it has, especially to engage the musicians. I perhaps hadn’t fully realised the needs of musicians.
Wondering also from my observations if in some way this work is not successful at general public interaction and falls down on my idea of how Art’s Magic Circle operates, that the structure of the experience is better suited to a different mode of showing. I observed when the players stopped and played the whole tune, not in game mode, lots of public stopped to watch and they clapped at the end, many more than had been in the gameplay. So is this a weakness in the structure of this work, do they need to play the whole tune in some way. Now realise being stopped playing for musicians is frustrating, as they tell me this. Though I didn’t do the shuffle mechanic and the players told me the criss crossing the space was most fun part for them. The shuffle mechanic I now realise also slowed them down from reaching the end objective, which happens too quickly if not used, unless the area is mch longer between players and score, though this is limited by ability to read it. We attracted participants but always dribs and drabs. What is actually in it for participants? Maybe not enough. It also didn’t dominate the space like other research art games I have tested.
Though afterwards players had lots of ideas of how to do it different. When operational people did come over to watch and comment at those in the experience, and some did cross over into the activity and took part themselves, so it exhibited some of the concepts of the circle and how it affects those in the space, perhaps I just imagined it having a greater impact. I think the participants don’t have a strong enough role and think it a bit unfulfilling as games seemed too short as musicians get to participants too quick. Though those in the gameplay seemed happy and to enjoy it. The mechanic or turning away and back, needs something else, a reason beyond its arbitrary nature. One participant did ask why would I want them to stop them playing and wasn’t really fulfilled by my explanation, though it is in some sense about Mastery. My observation reveal the musicians not strong enough visually to impact such a busy space. I wondered about Augmented Reality. Maybe rather than actual music on the bodies you hold phone on person and see the Score. As was thinking about lots of different music then or longer scores. The signs also kept falling apart or blowing with wind so they need a redo. It felt like I could explore it more in the studio. In a public space the connection between players and participants dilutes. Where as (M)ollie the opposite, the larger the group, the more public space the more powerful it becomes.
The players tried their own strategy which they seemed excited by, to allow them to play more of the music. They moved really slowly so they could play more of the score. This for some reason made me think about my reading of the history of games, and how emperors in china would play chess with real people playing the pieces. This undermines the prelusory goal but it was their input, but it lessened the gameplay. Is this revealing some difference between mechanics and Magic circle elements. In that this is a gamework with Mechanics but doesn’t fulfil the Magic circle structure. Is the circle about building the arena and not the work. So you are looking at how to situate the work. It was a bit rushed and unstructured I felt this time. I should have tried the huddle. But starting to think this game artwork, better in a studio situation. Is it that some of the works are about the magic circle and some are about mechanics and elements. Some ideas that were raised afterwards were, the idea that there are maybe two teams and the participants are in the middle and players either side. The participants move towards musicians, so reversing the game structure. Not sure I can really get them to do the same bit of music again. It didn’t have the joy this time. Thinking about it in relation to gamification and but it isn’t about learning something, a skill, as gamification can be, but about the idea of that in some manner professionals through the use of game mechanics can create an artwork with those who have no learning in the artform. So that expands what participation is sometimes put forwards as, that those participating are Folk, everyday people, it is hard to term them, but they can work with the correct mechanic with professionals in a field, such as dancers or players, and create an artwork. So a community of practice in some sense.
Though looking back over the documentation, it maybe was more effective than I at first imagined. People seem to be enjoying themselves a great deal and it seems to have impact in the space. The market with its bright signage does have a strong aesthetic that seems to compliment the happening. I had thought of urban and the idea of the Circle as perhaps being in ulaterian dull urban space, but actually there is a great deal of contrast and colour in the market that vitalises the game. In the video. Also you can start to see the connection between players and participants. Interesting that as an observer in the space maybe too far from the action, the video seems to tell a different story. There is a nice stare off at times between participants and musicians. There is a big difference in the video of the day, compared to the actual time of the experience. It does transfer well. It is interesting how when the players freeze, it makes it look like the people around freeze too. Some of the stall holders were a bit rowdy, but it all seemed good natured. So watching back recordings, when they did change and start to move more slow, it did attract more people to watch. So there is something in having more defined chunks of music in a space. It isn’t that they are moving slowly, they have to finish a bar of music before they take the next step. It could work.
EDIT: Now I am editing the footage, unlike when we played it in the studio, and it was all one complete shot, now it is in a public location am starting to use multiple cameras. Sometimes up to three, as starting to want close up and cut aways and to get a full idea of what the game looks like in the space. A very different edit, to how I collected the studio version, as was happy with a contained shot, so showing things real time. It is still real time, but pieced together from multiple angles. It seems to needs this due to the business of the visual of the market itself. Partly due to people walking across the shot, which I do like, and trying to cut on people entering and exiting the frame. In the second round, when we played a local stall holder in exchange for us playing the game,wanted a photo of use with his merchandise, socks, in our mouths. Which i did. I wasn’t sure to keep this in, but feel this does represent part of the exchange for people joining and crossing into the circle. In exchange for his involvement, he asks us to promote his wares. So there is a fair exchange. There are many reasons people pass into the circle, here watching us he saw the opportunity to promote his stock, by playing in the work. Also is this part of the idea of the gap, in the edit for this round, it takes up a third of the time with the exchange. As I progressed through the various rounds, in the later stages I tried to give cutaways and views of spectators, to give it an idea of its place in the environment. In number 6, trying to look at doing a build up to the game beforehand. Trying to make the participants and those around more situated. So the editing process is very different form the studio test, when I have to take in the environment around.
research 