Electroplankton, released on the Nintendo DS in 2005 in Japan, is not the typical, every-day video game. In fact, when looking at various reviews and impressions on the Internet, it seems that most would even hesitate to call it a video game, due to there being no set goal toward which the ‘player’ aims. Time limits and high scores simply do not exist, nor does any sort of save function. The genre of Electroplankton is officially labeled as ‘media art,’ and in an interview published on the official website, the creator refuses to call it a ‘game.’ So then, what is it that the user does with Electroplankton? Put simply, the user is given the opportunity to interact with animated, electric ‘plankton’ through the Nintendo DS’s touch-screen interface and microphone function, creating a visual and musical experience that becomes solely his or her own. In all, the user is given a choice of ten different interfaces to manipulate, each consisting of differing sounds and visuals. Because the user is limited to interacting with one of the ten interfaces at a time, some would argue that the game actually gives a limited interactive experience. However, it is up to the user how he or she would like to manipulate each of the interfaces, and is highly unlikely that any two experiences with each interface would end up being identical.
An in-'game' screen capture from Electroplankton.
Developed by the Japanese interactive media and installation artist, Iwai Toshio, Electroplankton, in fact, shares many similarities with interactive, digital media installations of the last few decades, embracing the idea of ‘response’ becoming a primary medium of the work. In an essay entitled Responsive Environments, new media artist Myron W. Krueger suggests the advent of a “new art medium based on commitment to real-time interaction between men and machines”—a medium that is comprised of “sensing, display and control systems.” While a traditional painting can be considered a completed work of art without the presence of an audience, artworks that take audience response as a primary medium simply cannot exist, or at the very least cannot be complete, without the interaction of the audience. This is very much the case with Electroplankton. Without the interaction of the player through the Nintendo DS interface, it remains static and unchanging, thus failing to become complete. (Interestingly, however, Electroplankton actually has what is called an ‘audience mode,’ which allows the player to simply watch and listen to a continuous musical performance as programmed into the software. However, I have disregarded this mode in this posting, as I believe it should be considered as a completely separate work from the main ‘performance mode’ as described above.)
A video demonstrating some of the interactive plankton interfaces from Electroplankton.
Electroplankton is obviously a great example of how new technologies have allowed for new and innovative ways of displaying creativity. Not only does the media art piece allow for an interactive art experience that is unique to each member of the audience, as do many installation and Internet-based works, but it also allows one to do so on a commercially successful gaming system, which adds a new layer of experience. Whereas other such experiences must be experienced within a gallery or a location with an Internet connection, Electroplankton can be experienced virtually anywhere. In addition, I would assume that most users would begin their experience expecting to be playing a ‘video game’ rather than viewing and interacting with an art piece. This could both, enhance the experience or detract from the experience, depending on whether the player readily accepts the ephemeral 'gameplay' of Electroplankton, which cannot be saved. The fact that it is packaged and sold as a video game definitely affects the way that people view the piece, and I find it to be one of the more interesting new media art pieces in recent history, despite its relative obscurity.
In a sense, Electroplankton, despite the artist’s refusal to call it a game, blurs the line between interactive media art and video games. And in actuality, it may be more correct to say that it further blurs this line, as some people would already argue that video games, or at least some video games, should be considered a form of art. Such arguments are quite interesting, and often times these arguments depend on what exactly one’s interpretation of ‘art’ is. Is art simply something that has aesthetic value, or must it have conceptual value as well? Must it be communicating something to be considered art? However, this discussion has another time and place, and perhaps I will come back and visit this idea at another time, as I believe that it is quite relevant to the main topic of this blog.
1 comment:
One of the critics that we will be reading later this quarter, Ian Bogost, gave an interesting talk at the Meaningful Play conference about the potential of videogames to serve as artworks. The session was filmed, but I have some notes on Bogost's talk here: http://virtualpolitik.blogspot.com/2008/10/meaningful-play-day-one-art-without.html
Post a Comment