work hard play hard by Bika Xaxa

WORK HARD PLAY HARD 1

INTRO

PLAY THEORY

INTORDUCTION TO THE FOUR CASE STUDIES

ORGANISATION, FORM and COLOR

DATA , CONTROL and the DESIGN PROCESS

CONCLUSION

CORPORATE OFFICE

OFFICE LANDSCAPE

GOOGLE

ART OR WHA?

HAPPENING

MOMA PS1

1960s

today

INTRO If someone would hypothetically ask me to describe the social strata I find myself in- that is young professionals and academics born in the mid 1970s to mid 1990s living in New York CityI would probably have to resort to the phrase â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;work hard, play hardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Even though I profess to have reservations towards this kind of condensed mottos, I find this expression particularly poignant. It acutely describes the current competitive job market and work culture, while expressing the self entitlement of a generation to have fun. It also opens up a dichotomy between work and play, implying that they are mutually exclusive. While work and play certainly have separate characteristics, this perception is something I would like to challenge and explore the many overlaps and productive interferences between the pair. Society can be seen as an ordering principle trying to sublimate and channel play into particular moments and activities. Education is synonymous with a negation of playfulness- a gradual enforcement of discipline suppressing the urge of children to play and act. Only specific times and occasions allow for playfulness, for adults often accompanied by the consumption of alcohol or other stimulants. If most grown-ups can only return to the state of playfulness with the help of intoxicating substances, a curious inversion has happened- through education and societal rules people not only accept but internalize the state of non-play so fully that a state of play needs to be artificially induced. Recently a few colleagues of mine were prompted to spontaneously answer the question: What is your idea of success? Most of them replied it to be a successful separation between work and life. If finding the right balance is considered a success in itself, it must be something difficult to achieve. If work is seen as the disciplinary structured element in life then play is the unpredictable, unforeseen, amorphous substance in between. The relationship between artist and viewer displays similar dynamics. The artists defines a framework that can then be freely adapted by the spectator. Even when they are invisible, the rules of the game are given by the author, with an uncertain outcome on the side of the spectator. The most common relation between work/play and artist/spectator is one of separation. Work is clearly defined as s specific activity to happen at a certain location, while play is a different kind of action happening in a different place. Play is not controlled or defined by work in a direct way. The same relationship pertains to the artist and her work. The contemplation of the work is happening in a separate space from the production of it and the author actually has no direct authority over how the work of art will be perceived. Amongst the many digressions from this classic model, there have been particularly interesting ones in the late 1950s; when two completely separate, yet radical attempts questioned ideas of hierarchy and traditional binary power relationships. The so called office landscape in Germany tried to improve the work environment with a design that looked playful from the outside but was actually highly scripted and controlled, while the artist Allan Kaprow experimented with new kind of experiential performance art- the happenings. Kaprow would precisely script the performances, while the effect would seem spontaneous for the viewers. The participants created an appearance of improvisation that was clearly dictated by a single authorship. It is not a coincidence that two of the chosen case studies are from 1959-even if they appeared in completely different contexts, they both represent a radical departure of the norms at the time, questioning the experience of the user. Artists and scientists alike questioned core problems and values, in an era of immense scientific progress, at the time when the first human made object reached the moon and the first contraceptive pill was prescribed.

WORK ARTIST

PLA SPECTA

PS PS

Today, there is a trend towards consolidation of work and play within a singular system, while keeping their individual characteristics intact. The office spaces of the global company Google are an example where play and work are combined into one physical space, while being consciously separated. Areas designated for work also look like conventional work areas (few, colder colors, simple lines, flat tables with big monitors) while play zones have a different character (colorful, soft warm materials, gaming equipment, toys). The expectation is that the two areas would create productive interferences through their proximity. This trend towards consolidation is also reflected in the contemporary art gallery Moma PS1 in Queens, which is standing under the auspices of the Museum of Modern Art. Similarly, a clear spatial differentiation creates a distinction between the traditional gallery spaces and the experimental, performative, interactive spaces. The conventional gallery spaces with white walls exhibit static objects, while the areas of play are defined by unusual spatial constructs, immediately identifying the space of play. The four case studies just mentioned, Office Landscape, Happenings, Google and MomaPs1, all redefine the relationships between play and work, artist and spectator in different ways. The purpose of this paper is not to study each of the case studies in detail but to distill their relevance in regard to play. The four case studies form a interconnected matrix- two of them are offices, two of them are related to the art world. From each of these two groups, one example is from the 60s and one example is contemporary. Compared to sports, gaming or parties, an office is by definition the area of non-play, so the instances of play can be better singled out and studied. Sports for example can be seen as formalized play- and are therefore less productive to look at in terms of learning about the relationship between work and play. The position of participatory art towards play is more ambiguous- play is often an integral part of it. Participatory art promises the possibility of a total playful environment. The artist is often critical of passively consumed art and wants to create a more engaging experience for the viewer. The question becomes how much authority the author wants or can give up. However, similarly to the dynamics between work and play, the relationship between author and audience is not binary- when the audience gets more power it does not mean the author loses it. They can be mutually interdependent and productive. Western society is deeply biased towards work, seeing it as virtuous, and play as vice. It is easier to justify excessive working than excessive playing. But what happens when play enters work? When the two become indistinguishable? To explore these questions the first part of this paper will introduce theoretical theoretical concepts of play and its relationship to work while the second part will dive into a comparison of the four case studies to understand more about their specific conditions regarding the interrelationship between work and play.

PLAY THEORY Play is a notoriously slippery term, it is indeed so hard to grasp that many of the attempts to pin it down seem didactic and forced. Traditionally work and play have been looked at separately, but are increasingly considered a pair to be studied in tandem. Three general approaches to play by play theorists Johan Huitzina, Richard Schechner and Brian Sutton- Smith as well as two concepts relating specifically to the relationship between work and play by Richard Burke and Peter Mathias will be introduced here, serving as a conceptual backdrop for the comparison of the four case studies. ‘Homo ludens’ or ‘Playing Man’ by the dutch historian Johan Huizinga, published in 1938, became the seminal reference for all later studies of play. Defining play as an essentialy unnecessary, voluntary activity that is separate from ordinary or ‘real’ life, Huitzina traced the connection between play and cultural evolution, claiming that play is oder than culture. Because of its cultural relevance, play is fundamental to society. Huitzingas text stresses the undervalued cultural importance of play. However Huitzinga was clearly opposed to play as a way of increasing efficiency or productivity in an economic sense-he criticizes the moment when play becomes ‘for profit’ as the turning point when it would loose its quality of being disinterested and by definition loose its play quality. Huitzinga was rather interested in the origins of play and analysed play in regards to art, philosophy, poetry, law and war. Even if Huizinga never explicity mentioned the relationship between work and play, there are a few passages that clearly allude to it, for instance: “The contrast between play and seriousness is always fluid. The inferiority of play is continually being offset by the corresponding superiority of its seriousness. Play turns to seriousness and seriousness to play. Play may rise to heights of beauty and sublimity that leave seriousness far beneath.”1 In this beautiful inversion Huitzinga starts with the pre-conceived notion of the ‘inferiority of play’ to show how its serious side can be tougher than seriousness itself. Richard Burke uses this same quote in his 1971 essay “Work” and “Play” to demonstrate how playing indicates a stepping out of reality. The awareness that one is only pretending, does not necessarily make play less serious than a ‘real’ situation. Burke sees the most productive qualities of play in the ability to create artificial worlds and alternative realitys. The true significance and seriousness of play lies in a representation or rehearsal of life. In his essay Burke not only negates the traditional separation and moral judgement of play and work but also says that play is part of work and that work cannot be fully satisfying if it does not include elements of play: “I wish to maintain in this essay that the most satisfying kind of work shares in the freedom and plasticity of play; that the most satisfying kind of play (in the long run) is purposeful and disciplined, like work; and that the good life for both individuals and societies must include plenty of both kinds of activities... My main thesis, that some highly satisfying activities partake in both work and play, obviously depends on their being compatible.”2 Starting with this premise Burke goes on to find a definition of play, by listing a number of statements that he considers play and looking for commonalities between them. He concludes with a definition of play that is “an activity which is free, complete in itself, and artificial or unrealistic.” versus: “Work, then, is activity which is part of a whole and which is governed by a discipline imposed on the parts by that whole.” Burke sees no contradiction between the two and sees that in the best case the two would work together. Only in combination with the other can each of them be fullfilling.

1 Johan Huitzinga, Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in culture (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1949), 8 2 Richard Burke, “Work” and “Play” ( Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1971), 33

Peter Mathias analyzes and traces the origins of ethical value judgment in regards to play and work in his essay ‘Time for Work, Time for Play :Relations Between Work and Leisure in the Early Modern Period’. He explains how work has become associated with virtue, and play with vice in the the Protestant ethic. He describes the ‘fear of leisure’ – still prevailing today- originating from the work ethic of Calvinism in the sixteenth century: “One facet of the ideology of labour was that work implied disciplined behaviour and leisure indiscipline - either directly because of idleness or because of the consequences of drinking.”1 Mathias goes on to describe in detail how labour conditions changed and affected the acceptance leisure or play in society. He ends with an outlook towards the paradigm shift in the 19th and 20th century, when leisure would be validated as driver of consumption and therefore necessary contstituent of the process of economic growth. In contrast to Huitzinga eulogy of play, the important play theorist Brian Sutton-Smith delivers a more analytical perspective of play in his book published in 1996, ‘The Ambiguity of Play’.2 Contrary to what the title suggests he tries to bring order to the often contradictory and ambiguous discourses and definitions of play. Bothered by the ‘lack of clarity’ of various play theories he makes a list of play phenomena from private to public, starting with mind games, to big public celebrations and festivals. Also in differention to Huizinga he is interested in the dark side of playwhat he calls ‘deep play’. In defining social identity, play can also be used to demonstrate power. What is playful for one person can be experienced as abusive or frightening by the other. Sutton’s analysis explores ‘seven identifying rhetorics of play’ around which the book is structured. The seven rhethorics are the rhethorics of progress (evolution), fate (gambling), power, identity, imaginary, rhetorics of the self and the frivolous. By departmentalizing play, Smith does not get closer to the core of play. Contrary to the title the ambiguity that is a defining quality of play is desiccated by Smith’s analysis. Richard Schechner in his book ‘Performance Studies: An Introduction’3 looks at play in regards to performance studies- claiming that play is at the core of performance- in its quality of being not entirely real or serious. He offers seven interrelated approaches to play as a way of structuring his inquiry into play. Not all of them are pertinent here, but some of the points are interesting. Schechner inquires into the function of play and its potential economic effects. He also questions the experiental qualities of play and how it affects peoples moods. Even if Schechner claims to talk about play in regard to performance studies he actually gives a broad overview of different aspects of play and does not really arrive at a specific definition but rather a panorama of possible viewpoints.

1 Peter Mathias, Time for Work, Time for Play :Relations Between Work and Leisure in the Early Modern Period (Franz Steiner Verlag, VSWG: Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 81. Bd., H. 3, 1994),pp. 305-323 2 Brian Sutton Smith, The Ambiguity of Play (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1997) 3 Richard Schechner, Performance Studies: an Introduction (London, New York, Routledge, 2002)

INTRODUCTION OF THE FOUR CASE STUDIES Following is a introduction to the four case studies and their general relationship in regards to play. First the two offices and then the two examples from the art world will be briefly described, each of them starting with the example from the 60s followed by the contemporary case study. The office landscape was a completely radical departure from office design in the late 50s. It was based on scientific observation and the emerging cybernetic studies at the time. For this comparison we will look at one of the earliest examples, the conversion of one level in a warehouse for the logistics company ‘Buch und Ton’ based in the small German town Guetersloh. The concept was developed by a team of information scientists, engineers and mathematicians along with the office planning consultants Wolfgang and Eberhard Schnelle.1 The ideas tested in this early experiment proved to be popular and were further developed first in Germany and later in the United States. Today an almost forgotten, eccentric moment in the history of corporate design, office landscaping in the 1970s was seen as a viable alternative solution to conventional office planning. The notion of play is never explicitly mentioned in relation to the office landscape- despite its overtly playful appearance, the very concept of play was still seen as so fundamentally opposed to the notion of work that the office landscape was only be described in terms of efficiency. However, the breaking away from the regularity, the ennui, the repetition and routine of regular office arrangement definitely indicate a desire for a more active, stimulating, playful experience at work. If there is one company the embodies the success of a start up, the new American dream that does not come from consistent hard but rather from the implementation of one single great idea, it is Google. A company notoriously known for its self conscious image, it prides itself on attracting the brightest young people in the field with great working conditions. Google is very aware of the effect the design of the office has on employee satisfaction and productivity. Overall the companies goal to innovate starts with its own internal structure and design. For a company with over 30.000 employees world wide, each headquarter has slightly different requirements, yet there are many consistent factors throughout- for example a large area of the office space dedicated to what is conventionally not considered work. Google offices have a strong outward appeal and are treated as role models for other offices.2 For this case study, Google Moscow will be analyzed, rather than an office from the United States, where Google originates. Floor plans of US Google offices are subject to restrictions due to security reasons. Google Moscow does not seem to have these concerns, as the floor plans are published online in elaborate detail.3 Similarly to the office landscape the term play is not use very much in the office designs of Google, yet there clearly are playful elements in the design, from gaming rooms, to toys, to secret revolving doors built into walls.

1 Andreas Rumpfhuber, Space of Information Flow: The Schnelle Brothers’ Office Landscape “Buch und Ton” (Berlin, Jovis Verlag, 2011) 2 “Worlds Coolest Offices”, accessed December 5th, 2013, http://www.inc.com/ss/worlds-coolest-offices-2012#6 3 “Evolution Office,” accessed December 5th, 2013, http://www.camenzindevolution.com/Office/Google/Google-Office-Moscow

The happenings were art events that began in the New York City art scene in the late 50s and encompassed a mix of performance, sounds installation, painting and other artistic media. Happenings created a new kind of experience for the audience, allowing people to move through a three dimensional multi- sensorial artwork. The artist Allan Kaprow was the first to coin the term happening- here we will look specifically at ‘18 happenings in 6 acts’, one of his earlier pieces. This particular happening was first shown in a gallery in New York City in 1959. Several actors were simultaneously acting out a number of mini-performances in six different rooms with the audience moving through the spaces.1 Happenings are so interesting today because of their redefinition of the relationship between artist and audience and their attempts to engage the audience with art in a immediate way. Allan Kaprow was interested in the notion of play and he admired Johan Huitizinga’s ‘Homo Ludens’. He saw a danger in the sublimation of play, as he writes in his essay ‘The Education of the Un-Artist’: “As direct play is denied to adults and gradually discouraged in children, the impulse to play emerges not in true games alone, but in unstated ones of power and deception; people find themselves playing less with each other than on or off each other.”2 Ascribing to play the capacity to improve societal problems he proposed to create state sponsored programs teaching adults how to play again. He also saw art and play as inextricably linked, or even interchangeable as he writes in the same essay: “Art work, a sort of moral paradigm for an exhausted work ethic, is converting into play. As a four-letter word in a society given to games, play does what all dirty words do: it strips bare the myth of culture by its artists, even.”3 With the study of his happening we can take a closer look how playfulness was actually acted out in his work. Moma Ps1 is currently a venue offering a variety of different activities relating to contemporary art, from exhibitions, to concerts, performances, book fairs and more. It is located Queens, off the beaten path of the New York City Art scene, yet still conveniently enough located to be merely one train stop away from Manhattan. The museum was founded in 1976 as an independent institution and used as studio, performance, and exhibition space and only fully became incorporated with the Museum of Modern Art in the year 2000.4 It was the same year that the Young Architects Program was established, a yearly competition for emerging architects to design an temporary installation in the courtyard of the building during the summer months. The focus here will be the installation entiteld ‘Pole Dance’ from 2010 by the architects SO-IL. They created a playful, lightweight piece that allowed different levels of interaction. Ps1 is an interesting case study because a participatory art installation is happening within very constricted conditions. Even if MomaPs1 is seen as the rather experimental venue, it is still being programmed under the auspices of the MoMA, one of the most venerable art institutions in the world.The many levels of hyrarchy inherent in the system become explicit in the cumbersome selection procedure for the Young Architects Program. Even if the the experience of the installation itself is meant to be more engaging, interactive and often less high brow than what these institutions usually offer, the many regulations during the actual performances give them a constricted feel.

1 Stephanie Rosenthal, Eva Meyer-Hermann and André Lepecki, Allan Kaprow : 18/6 : 18 happenings in 6 parts, (London, Thames & Hudson [distributor], 2007) 2 Allan Kaprow, Jeff Kelley, editor, Essays on the blurring of art and life (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2003), 121 3 Allan Kaprow, Jeff Kelley, editor, Essays on the blurring of art and life (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2003), 125 4 “MoMA ps1,” accessed December 5th, 2013, http://momaps1.org/about/affiliation/

OFFICE LANDSCAPE

GOOGLE

ORGANISATION, FORM and COLOR Following is a description of the formal qualities and organization of the four case study play spaces. The office landscape is an rectangular horizontal plane, measuring 39 by 57 meters, roughly the size of a football field. Between 250 and 270 employees were working there in flexible arrangements. Clusters of furniture are arranged within the space, each cluster having certain characteristics distinguishing it from the rest. Each group has its own internal orientation, with all elements facing the same way. The clusters as well as two separate lounge areas are demarcated by moving wall and planters, creating passageways in between. The floor is fully covered with perlon carpet to absorb sound, since that is one of the main problems of an open plan office. The height of the space is less than three meters and the suspended ceiling is covered with colored aluminum sheets, with intermittent openings for open fluorescent lamps. The color scheme is in subdued brown and ocher tones.1 The hues are supposed to be bright but buy today’s standards they would probably rather be described as stolid. When looking at the office landscape plan, it is striking that it is has the most playful appearance of the four case studies. It seems chaotic as the internal logic of arrangement is not perceptible at first sight. In that it opposes the idea of work as governed by discipline and is close to the idea of play as a free, unrestricted field. Compared to the idiosyncratic layout of ‘Buch und Ton’, Google’s floor plan seem conventional. The workstations are orderly positioned along simple, functional, rectangular tables close to the windows. All the desks are the same size and are placed equidistant from each other. White and gray are the predominant colors, only a few subdued tones are added. The floor is carpeted to allow for sound absorption. These areas correspond to work as a orderly, disciplined, focused activity. About half of the square footage is occupied with spaces which are not meant straightforward for work. The workstations are lining the spaces of play, they are like a solid bracket for a more soft, fluid interior. Here the playful functions corresponds to the playful aesthetics, each of the spaces is unique, much of it is open plan and the furniture is irregularly scattered throughout. The colors, like in most Google offices, are based on the primary color scheme that is also characteristic of Google’s logo, expanded with warmer materials usually natural hues and patterns, like wood or stone texture. The so called ‘relaxation’ and ‘activity’ hubs, are divided into meeting areas, informal areas and special communal areas. The main differentiation from other corporate offices is the proportion of the area that is allocated for this traditional workspace and areas with different functions, like catering, game rooms and lounges. The proportion of work towards other areas in the Moscow Google office is roughly half and half, whereas in the office landscape the proportion is only one to one eighth.

Andreas Rumpfhuber, Space of Information Flow: The Schnelle Brothers’ Office Landscape “Buch und Ton” (Berlin, Jovis Verlag, 2011)

HAPPENING

MOMA PS1

The 18 happening in 6 parts took over the entire Reuben gallery on 4th avenue in downtown manhattan. The gallery was divided into six equally sized rooms, each with a different composition and combination of chairs, tables, record players and other props used for the performances. The entire gallery is taken over as the space of art, art becomes encompassing and immaterial rather than an object to be looked at. The writer Samuel R. Delany attended the event in the summer 1960 and has conveyed his impressions in a memoir, published in 1989. According to his memory the event was perceived as “highly confusing, without a clear ending or beginning.”1 There were many things going on simultaneously and often one would just perceive them in a distorted manner through the translucent plastic sheets that were hung as room dividers. It is interesting that this overwhelming multi-sensorial experience corresponds to the by far simplest and clearest plan layout of the four. Looking at it this way, one would find it the least playful of the four- it is completely disciplined and regular. In person, however the impression was completely opposite, because of the materiality, the irregularly placed props, but mostly because of the action happening inside. The translucent surfaces created a disorienting, confusing effect, making it in fact hard to orient in the space, even thought the organization was very simple. In this case, the organization actually corresponds to an idea of work as discipline, but still has a playful effect, based on material effects. This is an inverted effect to the landscape, where the plan is very complex and playful, but the actual impression within the space is one of monotony and regularity. Ps1 is taking over an entire space with a regular grid, overlayed with an irregular and changing arrangement of the inflatable exercise balls. The circular pool creates the singular disturbance of the regularity of the grid. The other curvy seating elements are casually placed, they look almost randomly placed. The net is very light, almost flimsy, suggesting impermanence. The colors are consciously chosen to be reminiscent of toys, meant to remind adults of more playful times- the hues range in pastel baby blues, bright corals and light greys. The appearance is one of carefully controlled playfulness, both in plan view as in the actual experience of the space. The site itself has a more irregular shape than the rectangular gallery of the happening. The grid is not as predominant as the irregular, curvy elements. The colored spheres can only modulate the mesh slightly within the even grid, but they still give an air of control to the user. The poles that are holding up the structure are equally slightly flexible and can be oscillated by the viewer to produce temporary disturbances but in the end they are fixed. This space becomes a graft of work and play, seriousness and looseness. Even if all the other examples use elements of both, they use it to one end after all. ‘Pole Dance’ at the MoMA Ps1 achieves a fluid interplay between control and freedom through a carfeul calibration between the two.

1 Gavin Butt, Happenings in History, or, the Epistemology of the Memoir (England, Oxford University Press, Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001), 115-126

OFFICE LANDSCAPE

GOOGLE

HAPPENING

MOMA PS1

PLANNING OF DESIGN OF PLANNING PLANNING TEAMPLANNING PLANNING OF DESIGN PLANNING TEAM

ADAPTIVE CONTROL NETWORK SINGLE AUTHOR PEOPLE OPERATIONS ARTIST CONTROL NETWORK ADAPTIVE PEOPLE OPERATTIONS

ADAPTIVE CONTROL NETWORK PEOPLE OPERATIONS DATA , CONTROL

and the DESIGN PROCESS

This chapter circles around the question of control and its implications for work and play. Almost all definitions of play describe it as being autonomous, uncontrolled and unexpected. Any form of control would therefore seem antithetical to an idea of play, yet all case studies show a high degree of regulation in different ways. To start with the office landscape, a crude dichotomy opens up between its seemingly chaotic appearance and its almost absurdly detailed planning procedures. In a manual that was published in 1977 entitled ‘Planning the Office Landscape’1 the process is described in detail: a step by step procedure explains exactly how the planning process should be executed- it requires a plethora of charts, like an ‘activity time chart’, chart of hierarchy and function, illustrated informal structure, lines of communication, real grouping of department personnel, communication analysis and a matrix of total communications, just to name a few of the required data that is required according to the authors. A diagram of the design process of the office landscape would therefore start with a planning of the planning, then moving into extensive research, and only then would be design process begin. Theses planning procedures intensify the hierarchy of the planning process and also take the responsibility away from the authors and the architects. It is presented as a process that is scientifically justified and therefore cannot be contested. Today Google offices takes data mining to shape their offices to an unprecedented level. True to what the company is promoting on a global level, it is intensely data mining its employees. Every single move, every lapse or increase in productivity is recorded and analyzed.2 There is an entire department, entitled ‘People Operations’, just responsible for increasing efficiency through various measures, including changing the design of the offices: In the last couple years, Google has even hired social scientists to study the organization. The scientists—part of a group known as the PiLab, short for People & Innovation Lab—run dozens of experiments on employees in an COMPETITION effort to answer questions about the best way to manage a large firm. The design of the physical spaces and the overall company is inextricably linked- constantly readjusting, expanding, reshuffling. The visualization of this process is less top-down than the office landscape, it is much rather a complex network with feedback loops. While Google likes to present its idiosyncratic office designs as a result of its origins as a small ‘garage’ start up company, this is hardly believable in such a large company. If the extra, ‘playful’ spaces would turn out to be less viable, they would slowly be eradicated, like all the other failed policies they would not disappear immediately- for that they are also too viable as a marketing tool for the company- but they would slowly be sifted out. An example of how the company is not shy to make fundamental changes to its policies, is the recent abolishment of the 20% rule. Since the founding of Google, this regulation allowed every employee to spend one fifth of their time on things not relating directly to work. When Google went public in 2004, the founders’ letter from co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin cited 20% time as instrumental to the company’s ability to innovate, leading to “many of our most significant advances,”3 The fact that Google still implements generous recreational space into their office designs (also internationally) means they must believe in their effective output for the company. The adaptive control network that is constantly surveying every single lapse in productivity would be quick to draw attention to extraneous expenses. 1 Alvin E. Palmer and M. Susan Lewis, Planning the Office Landscape (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1977) 2 “The New York Times online”, James B. Stewart, Looking for a Lesson in Google’s Perks, accessed December 5th 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html 3 “The Huffington Post online”, Christopher Mims, Google Effectively Kills ‘20 Percent Time,’ The Perk That Gave Us Gmail, accessed December 5th 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/google-20-percent-time_n_3768586.html

ADAPTIVE CONTROL NETWORK PEOPLE OPERATIONS SINGLE AUTHOR SINGLE AUTHOR ARTIST ARTIST

COMPETITION COMPETITION

Contrary to the appearance for the visitor, Alan Kaprows, 18 happenings in 6 parts was a highly scripted event. He created a schedule that denoted down to 30 seconds the timing of the performances in each room as well as the exact timing of the intermissions. He also created sketches and descriptions of how the performers were supposed to move. As Michael Kirby described it the performers movements were ‘clear, simple and unspontaneous. They walked ‘slowly, carefully, almost stiffly’ and only in straight lines, their faces betraying no emotions; they never crossed the space diagonally. The performers copied the poses of the stick figures in Kaprows preliminary drawings.’1 Kaprow’s documentation is so exact that the happenings could be reenacted in 2006 in Munich. The audience was also given precise instructions- to be quiet, not to leave during the performance or to smoke (which at the time was surely more of an extraordinary request that it would be today). Given these highly controlled conditions it seems almost curious that Kaprows happenings are so strongly associated with play, as the experience itself seems to not have been playful neither for the audience nor for the performers. The audience might be physically more engaged with the art, but the authorship is still clearly with only one person. Maybe the artist is the only one actually acting playing, by composing a whimsical score. The audience then experiences that playfulness passively. The design process at MoMA Ps1 involves several hierarchical stages, similar to the office landscape before the actual designing even begins. First a mixed high profile team from the architecture community nominates twenty emerging architects to submit portfolios. These portfolios are presented to the MoMA director Glenn Lowry and MoMA PS1 director Klaus Biesenbach, that, along with advisors, pick the three to five finalists, which are asked to develop proposals for the actual competition.2 Finally the winner gets to built the proposal with a modest budget. Compared to the happenings for instance there is an extraordinary degree of institutional control in the early stages of the project. The installation ‘pole dance’ form the year 2010 has a narrowly defined degree of control from the side of the audience. There are elements that are completely fixed like the pool, others that allow a certain amount of flexibility like the poles and completely loose elements, the balls. In some parts of the installation audiences can also influence sound. The poles generate sounds both based on physical movement and digital input, controlled by a phone app. It has not been documented how much people have actually used the app to change the sound scape, but either way the digital component adds another conceptual level of audience authority to the project. Djs sets and concerts attract a young crowd, yet the level of control at the events themselves is very high. Smoking is prohibited, only expensive drinks can be bought on site and there are many security officers at the event, making sure people are not standing, where they are not supposed to be, not dancing where they are not supposed to dance, not s where they are not supposed to sit and so on. Strangely, like in the happenings, people accept all these measures and still have a playful experience at the events themselves.

1 2

Jeff Kellery Childsplay: the Art of Allan Kaprow (Berkeley : University of California Press, 2004) “MoMA ps1,” accessed December 5th, 2013, http://momaps1.org/yap/view/16

OFFICE LANDSCAPE

HAPPENING

(not counting voice)

Duration

Room 3

Sound (place)

Room 2

Room 5

3.5 min

Slide (stripes)

Tape

movement

words for movement

5 min

2 min

15 min

I N T E R M I S S I O N speech movement

nothing 1 person

toy (room cubicle) Tape 4 corners

simultaneous painting 1 man 1 toy dance 2 persons

slide of girl on bench smth pts simultaneous

Tape 4

finishing tie telling terms walking tooth brushing movement 1 person

ball boucing movement nepartes between to puppets 2 people

I N T E R M I S S I O N movement in front of slids of held by hands slides

Tape 4 (whispers)

F I N I S

movement ball+ minors 2 persons read

I N T E R M I S S I O N pasting on front of cubicle talk

5 min

play time two persons at table â&#x20AC;&#x153;your moveâ&#x20AC;? record

I N T E R M I S S I O N matches in cubicle

15 min

speech

I N T E R M I S S I O N shaje at pole plus movement (or performance wth buttons 4 persons)

5 min

speech (record)

conversation on either side of banners (from center) 4 people

oranges 1 person

GOOGLE

MOMA PS1

CONCLUSION After having looked at play from different perspectives, the definition of the term is deliberately left ambiguous. Starting from Johan Huitzinga idea of the importance of play, to definitions of “Work” and “Play” by Richard Burke, a theoretical introduction helps to understand through one lens, while looking at the qualities of play and work in four very different case studies helps to elucidate play in different ways. The analysis looks first at formal qualities, like organisation, layout, from as well as colors and materials and second at how control affects the level of playfulness. Consciously positioning this as an open ended exploration, play and work being infinitely complex topics, there are are no sharp edged definitions or conclusions at this point, but rather a moment to summarize a few observations arising out of the study. The first pattern is that formal characteristics do not strongly correlate with a notion of playfulness, but that it is rather the aspect of change that is a constant and reliable factor that will create unforeseen, unique situations and a spirit of play. This can be seen in the office landscape, where not the fact that the floor plan was scattered created a feeling of excitement and alternative reality, but rather the novelty of the new scientific approach and method. Similary the happenings would today hardly be perceived as playful with their tighly regimented schedule, but it was the change of the artistic medium that had that exciting effect. Inversely Google has a number of facilities enabling to play next to work but the lack of novelty in their content still makes it primarily feel like a place to work rather than play. The second perhaps surprising point is that control is not necessarily anithetical to play. All examples display a high degree of control in their design and everyday functioning. What is more important is how the spaces are designated. It seems that people confirm to some degree to what is expected from them- if it is time to play, they will create a playful atmosphere, no matter how many restrictions are imposed in them. At Ps1 people get elated feelings of playfullness despite the tight regulatory net, while the supposed freedom at Google fails to elicit theses same emotions. If it is an environment that we understand primarily as work it does not matter, how many elements and visual cues are around us suggest playfullness. Comparing two more recent examples with two examples from the late 50s, a trend towards more explicitly playful spaces becomes apparent. As shown, for instance Google has four times more play-areas than the office landscape. All these models are still struggling with the interrelationship and transition between work and play and it remains to be seen what kind of fluid relationships will emerge in future experiments.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Johan Huitzinga, Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in culture (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1949), Richard Burke, “Work” and “Play” ( Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1971) Peter Mathias, Time for Work, Time for Play: Relations Between Work and Leisure in the Early Modern Period (Franz Steiner Verlag, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 81. Bd., H. 3, 1994), 305-323 Brian Sutton Smith, The Ambiguity of Play (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1997) Richard Schechner, Performance Studies: an Introduction (London, New York, Routledge, 2002) Andreas Rumpfhuber, Space of Information Flow: The Schnelle Brothers’ Office Landscape “Buch und Ton” (Berlin, Jovis Verlag, 2011) Stephanie Rosenthal, Eva Meyer-Hermann and André Lepecki, Allan Kaprow : 18/6 : 18 happenings in 6 parts, (London, Thames & Hudson [distributor], 2007) Allan Kaprow, Jeff Kelley, editor, Essays on the blurring of art and life (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2003), 121 Gavin Butt, Happenings in History, or, the Epistemology of the Memoir (England, Oxford University Press, Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001), 115-126 Alvin E. Palmer and M. Susan Lewis, Planning the Office Landscape (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1977) Jeff Kellery Childsplay: the Art of Allan Kaprow (Berkeley : University of California Press, 2004) “MoMA ps1,” accessed December 5th, 2013, http://momaps1.org/about/affiliation/ “The New York Times online”, James B. Stewart, Looking for a Lesson in Google’s Perks, accessed December 5th 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html “The Huffington Post online”, Christopher Mims, Google Effectively Kills ‘20 Percent Time,’ The Perk That Gave Us Gmail, accessed December 5th 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/google-20-percenttime_n_3768586.html “Evolution Office,” accessed December 5th, 2013, http://www.camenzindevolution.com/Office/Google/Google-Office-Moscow