garza.c

Lost Buddy

Given that I am graduating this semester I knew that what I really wanted to work on would involve grief. Especially since it feels like I am saying goodbye to a lot of my closest friends. I met a lot of people that I really cherish here at Northeastern and I think I went through a small version of the stages of grief where I have not fully processed the loss of everyone yet given that I am still on campus but I am already very aware of the effects that I will experience once I am fully gone. It wasn’t until this semester that it has truly clicked that I am gone after this and I will realistically lose touch with a lot of the people here which is such a shame but also I think part of the reason that processing the feeling of companionship and love are worth feeling at all. To this extent I knew I wanted to do something like marriage where I wanted to present the concept of an idea like grief and similarly to the game and the feeling of grief I want it to be ambiguous until a certain point. I know marriage very early on tells you the point in the title but my experience similarly does it when it reaches its climax. 

Jumping into the premise of my game I started out by initially asking people to leave the room when I pitched my idea to a small group of people and then I would ask those who were not there for the presentation to actually play the game. I didn’t want them to enter the game starting with the concept that they were going to lose their buddy because I thought that then the love might be disingenuous to the actual experience that I was going for. People don’t begin to make friends with the thought that they are eventually going to lose them. I would actually be really interested to see what that would look like but that’s not what I was going for. I wanted to present the concept of someone you love being suddenly lost. I did get some feedback that I still think is pretty note worthy like are people going to have enough time to create a bond with an object or would it be better for it to be an object that they already love but if that’s the case how do you represent the aspect of grief without actually taking it away from them. All really good points so I developed three different versions that I would playtest and see which would best represent my goal. I asked people to bring an item that had a strong sentimental value to them, I asked people to make a “buddy” that represented a being that they were really close to and that meant a lot to them and finally I asked the final group to make a buddy that was an item that meant a lot. They would then spend time with their specific buddy doing activities that I thought would present ways to bond with your buddy and bring about closer relationships with all of the players and their buddies.

I had quite a few people playtesting so I will group them here are some of the players bonding with their newly made buddy they had varying time with them

 

I had varying stories told to me about the buddies that were made hoping that this would expedite the fact that the players would have more affection for their buddies given that some of them are long time friends/favorite foods/favorite extinct animal/most cherished item/ pets/ first item created from a hobby/ a special gift from a loved one. All of these items meant something to the players and I hope that this would make it so that the players would explore the idea that made them love this item and cherish that thing before the next part.

Finally I asked people to return their buddies to me for a while so that I could “use them for the project”. I do think that people suspected that they might lose their buddies but I think what surprised them was the severity of the loss. I sent very gruesome deaths to the players that had returned their buddies to me.

I didn’t show any of them this until after they saw it during the presentation when I had asked one of my players to step up and talk about their experience spending time with their buddies which made it so that it was very gruesome because I thought that it would have the largest impact on the people that created their buddies. A lot of people were very shocked to see the atrocities that had occurred when they participated in my game. I even felt bad as I was really going through the memories that my players had collected and all of the time that they had spent together just to see something that represents something you love be absolutely destroyed in a horrible almost tortuous way. Even the people that hadn’t participated in my game were aghast from the horror of seeing something someone “loves” be destroyed. I had also described to the people that brought me items that meant lots to them the act of me doing horrendous things to their items and they gave me very vivid anger and mournful speeches. I think that makes a lot of sense because these items were irreplaceable unlike the buddies which represented something else. However overall I think people definitely got to experience grief in the way that I was going for so I would definitely consider it a success. I probably wouldn’t run this score or game again because even though I think grief is something that we as humans should be more comfortable with and not necessarily be scared of. I don’t like how heartless it felt to have people forge bonds with something just so I could “take it away” from them. I would absolutely love this game to be continued and expanded upon I dont think it would be me but I would love to see a spin on what I did and some variation that captures the same end goal.

As I mentioned earlier I had some inspiration from marriage for the way that I was executing the concept but the idea of Dys4ia was really nice and although the games themselves are very different the concept or execution I think is pretty similar. I enjoy the fact that it’s the designer putting across their perspective on a certain topic and I wanted to do something similar getting the player to get my perspective not through multiple mini games discussing the topic in various ways but through one long game that makes the player “feel” the experience. I think overall my biggest inspiration was from Blast Theory. I really like a lot of their projects, one of which being Uncle Roy all around you. I like the way that in the midst of what appears to be a fun different game they end up asking serious questions. I wanted to do something that followed that same idea where it appears to just appears to be something more light hearted and fun being the do fun things with this item you love, learn to appreciate it and be more mindful of the time you have with people and aspects of your life because it won’t be that way forever. Then like Uncle Roy I ask the hard hitting question of forcing them to lose this item or thing they love like Uncle Roy asked if you are willing to commit yourself to someone for the next year which I think helps present like the aspect of community and makes people less likely to be depressed or want to take their own lives. Finally I also had some inspiration from Kidnap by Blast Theory. Honestly I could relate my project to a lot of Blast Theory but I specifically like this one for the fact that people were consenting to being kidnapped and they would pay for this “service”. I wanted to attempt something similar with grief but the issue is that I think that loss often comes as a surprise which is what I was going for but I did ask people if they were okay with experiencing some intense emotion which I painted as happiness as in spending time with your buddy. However over all the fact that they made the kidnapping incredibly real to the point where people would ask themselves is this the service I paid for or am I really being human trafficked right now. I would love to go for something similar and have a very serious representation of ask someone to consent to losing someone and then have an extremely realistic sudden death and then bring them back into their life like a month after but again I think very serious issues could arise with that but I would like to see something like that play out.

Intervention: Public Arguements

My intervention involves having at least two people having a very passionate argument in public around a lot of people. The goal is to have people approach and give their perspective similarly to how they do on social media where everyone is extremely opinionated and loud over every little thing. I think it would be nice to simulate that and throw away the silliness and frankly ridiculousness of current social media outlets which seems to involve everyone trying to prove someone else wrong. On top of that this piece also came to me as a reaction to rage bait where people say outlandish things or push you to a point where you get very angry due to the reaction that you give and I think that this has been very normalized in social media and online culture generally. Thus I wanted to make a type of commentary on this by making the discussion that seems to be very common on online platforms and place that discussion in a public space where everyone is able to see the person that is making all of these arguments for their point. How differently will people react if they don’t have a screen to hide behind are they willing to join a conversation that wasn’t directed to them like they are online or will they shy away. I only attempted this intervention with silly topics where we mainly discussed which condiment we thought was best but extremely passionately we began by simply arguing really loudly and I wanted to see if that would be enough to get somebody to join the discussion. You can see this first attempt in the first half of the video where we do get a couple of strangers to give us strange looks but they all seem to want to stay out of it for the most part. Then we saw Christopher Barney and decided to regroup and try again but this time grabbing a stranger and asking them what they thought of the argument that we were currently having. You can see our attempt in doing this in the latter part of the video and even though the person we asked was willing to give their personal opinion it was very obvious that they were incredibly uncomfortable partaking in the discussion and wanted to leave as soon as possible. As I mentioned in my presentation I think it would be a good idea to do this intervention again in a different location and with different groups of people arguing along with try varying subjects. I would like to keep it apolitical as the idea that I am bringing up mainly involves the discourse present for political arguments. 

The presentation: Intervention presentation

My intervention was heavily inspired by the interventions that people have been doing for social media where they are incredibly loud and attempt to get a reaction from the people around them normally they end up being quite obnoxious but I think most interventions are somewhat an inconvenience for those who are being intervened. I think a great example of this is ADrizzy or Aaron Yeung who tends to go to very crowded locations such as the T and then starts saying things like “HEY EVERYONE TODAY IS FRIDAY AND I HOPE EVERYONE IS EXCITED FOR THE WEEKEND!!!” while everyone in the T looks incredibly uncomfortable or tries to avoid him. I also really like the intervention we saw in class which I can’t quite remember the name of but the general idea was having these two hackers walk around the cafe and are using suitcases and the cafes wifi to see what everyone is looking at and at the end they swap what two of the devices are looking at. I think this very much represents the idea of my intervention where people are very willing to look at certain things online but when that is brought into the public everyone suddenly feels naked because again they no longer have the internet or their screen to hide behind. Finally I feel like I should bring up the intervention created by the guest speakers where you are able to play the game on twitter by using their @ or on their site and having a lot of discourse online that is more visual than simply seeing tweets which at points you could see a lot of missiles being fired. Along with this you would have a lot of people who were not aware of the game trying to @ the game and get mad at them for talking to the president or saying whatever they were. I think this shows the general idea that the state of argument and discourse that we have right now in the 21st century is how everyone tries to respond to everything they can disagree with to the point where regardless of the topic or to whom it is like a game people would yell their opinion at.

ArtWork #2: Apropriating an apropriate Board Game

The idea behind my game was to involve a board game that has already been created that people did not know the rules of in this case I ended up using a game developed by a Northeastern proffessor and his partner being Robots. The idea behind my game is to have people play a game to which they do not know the rules and have them either make their own rules for the game and try to win based on their rules. Similarly they could also try to figure out what the rules on based on the context of what was given to them and what their capabilities were and try to win off of what they suspected was the win condition. The game has an overall a lot of moving parts and tries its best to make a lot of complex ideas simple and easy to understand thus it wasnt difficult for players to take the game in the correct direction. However how the game is actually played and overall the amount of pieces can be seen in the video bellow

Components:

  • 32 Gear Cards
  • 1 Coal Heart Hex
  • 1 Quarry Card
  • 1 First Player Card
  • 60 Resource Cubes
  • 6 Playmats
  • 66 Robot Parts
  • 12 Tracker Tokens
  • 7 Action Hexes
  • 1 Resource bag

An example of all of the pieces required to play the game

The first playtest for the game went very intrestingly because there were some aspects of the game that the group deffinetly got right however a lot of the rules that were found in more Eurocentric games seemed to confuse them or they seemed to not be aware of the limitation. They also seemed more willing to interpret the rules for their own robots very loosely. For example one of the robots has the feature of getting the ability to not be a target of being attacked whenever that specific player picks the attack action but the players chose to interpret it as meaning that they could just never get attacked. Which I was very surprised to see people just accept that because thats what the ability says. This play test was very intresting because when asked about the win condition they seemed to be certain it involved being the last robot to not be broken which is one of the two win conditions. Other than that they seemed to kind of hand wave a lot of the rules and just kind of guess which they all agreed with and had this expectation or idea of we can spend all day arguing so lets just agree upon a rule and play with it meaning a lot of rules were “broken” but they did get through the most gameplay out of all of the groups playtesting.

 

The second play test went really well this was by far the longest playtest going on for a little over 30 minutes and it was mainly because the players chose to do their absolute hardest to play the game correctly. This meant that they would read through every thing given to them and disscuss with each other on what it could mean and how it could relate or whether or not it proved their previous assumptions correct or not. They did however bassically play the game correctly they seemed to particularly enjoy figuring out how to play the game. They also all seemed to agree that in order for this game to work it should be a game that has a lot of direction to give the players which is a lot of information that the players can use to figure out how the game is played and only have the players make a couple leaps in logic to be able to properly play the game. This particular playtest group deffinetly had the most fun playing my game. Simillarly the final playtest went well it was a little shorter than the other two but people got the hang of it a lot quicker given that we had some repeat players and decissions were made very quickly though the game was still not played correctly but they all again expressed loveing having to figure out the rules of the game.

In the creation of my game I had a couple of inspirations such as the chess game that Celia Pierce showed us in class where someone was playing chess while it was on a mans back and they kept trying to play as they ran through the park. I thought the idea was quite humerous given that people already knew the game of chess it was a nice way to change/bend the rules. I also was inspired by the Ready made which I belive Duchamp started and I think the idea of having something be used in a different way follows the idea of my game given that I have something that has the purpose (a game meant to be played one way) and then have people be forced to play it a different way because they have no other choice but to play it the only way they know how which is not knowing it at all. I think Duchamp was a really big inspiration for this even without knowing it because I also think L.H.O.O.Q simillarly follows the inspiration because I take a game in this case one that isnt well known and make a small change to it being having the game be set up as if some other group of players had played and just got up mid round and then the new group of players arrived and have to figure out how to play and win while not knowing the rules. Meaning I take something created the board game or Mona Lisa and then make a small change to it that changes the initaial purpose of the piece very simillar to a lot of Dada to be honest.

Artwork #1: Phone Score

The score presented to the performer

My score called “Phone piece” is a piece inspired by Yoko Ono and her cut score where my version was a modernization of said score. When I initially saw a performance of the cut score I thought that it was fairly easy to perform in todays day and age. This got me thinking about how I could modernize the piece and the first thing that came to mind was our technology and how glued we are to it. However I then ran into the problem which was also the point I was trying to make with the piece which was that we value our privacy and our phone more than our potential well being. I wanted to be able to give up my life practically and leave it in the hands of strangers (classmates in this case) but I couldnt do it without the assurance that they wouldnt A.) break my phone and B.) ruin my life. Luckily none of these problems came up and in fact everyone was increddibly tame when they had someone elses phone in their hands even though they were given the liberty to do whatever they wanted no one seemed to do anything even close to harmful. When asked why they were only doing mild things after the playtest the audience said it was because they felt a sort of social contract to be kind and many said that might be due to the fact that we were not complete strangers.

Some of the examples of how the audience used the performers phone included, taking a photo, playing a performers mobile game, texting a person from their contact and going through their photos. This also caused me to make the desicion to make the performer decide when to end the piece since there was a case in early playtest where a performer took their phone back from the audience which perfectly portrayed the piece.

Even though this piece was based off of Yoko Ono’s cut piece the results reminded me a lot of the score that we talked about in class for a little bit by Marina Abramović where she invites people on stage to harm her because even though I agree that this piece likely could not be performed again in todays day and age I think the results were simillar. Where if you allow the audience to have full access to your phone for a longer period of time what they do with your phone would likely be more extreme. However due to this social stigma it seems like at least in this presentation the audience usage of the performers phone was very tame.

-Carlos Garza