Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary game environments

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 28 October 2014, At: 08:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Performance Arts andDigital MediaPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpdm20

Playing the third place: Spatial modalities incontemporary game environmentsAxel Stockburgera

a Academy of Fine Arts ViennaPublished online: 03 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Axel Stockburger (2007) Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary gameenvironments, International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 3:2-3, 223-236

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/padm.3.2-3.223_1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distributionin any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpdm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/padm.3.2-3.223_1

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, Volume 3 Number 2 & 3.

© Intellect Ltd 2007. Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.223/1

Playing the third place: Spatial modalitiesin contemporary game environments

Axel Stockburger Academy of Fine Arts Vienna

AbstractThe article identifies the specific nature of spatiality as one of the most importantaspects of contemporary networked game environments and presents a closereading of Henri Lefebvre’s spatial theories in order to gain a different perspectivetowards the subject. Artistic interventions in the form of online performances byartists such as Eddo Stern and Joseph DeLappe are discussed as exemplary formsof critical engagement with these emerging immersive environments.

IntroductionIn recent years digital games have evolved from single player systems toarenas of mediated performative action for large groups of players. Onedoes not even have to mention a phenomenon like Second Life, a kind ofbranding echo chamber that seems to fuel the imagination of journalists,media agencies and artists around the globe in order to realise that digitalgaming has undergone a veritable phase shift with the introduction ofimmersive online environments that are rendered in three dimensions. Ifone considers that Blizzard, the company responsible for the MMORPGWorld of Warcraft, has recently announced that it is reaching 9 millionsubscribers, each single one paying a monthly fee it is easy to imagine theeconomical impact of the medium. However, simultaneously it becomesevident that such game environments represent economical and social uni-verses in their own right and that they amount to public spheres which areowned and maintained by private companies. Artists such as Eddo Stern orJoseph DeLappe have started to critically engage with these mediatedspaces and have developed different strategies that amount to artistic per-formances in digital spaces. Their work will serve as exemplary for thenascient potential for performative arts embedded in those structures, butbefore anything else a fundamental issue has to be clarified.

If one agrees to the fact that the kinds of digital games that have beenbrought up above are novel media phenomena rooted in a specific spatial-ity, since they serve as realms for performative actions on a global scale,questions regarding the nature and qualities of this kind of spatialityemerge. In this context it is interesting to note that so far, very few attemptsat understanding the multi-dimensional nature of this spatial form haveemerged from the field of game studies. Although there exist numerousapproaches that address diverse aspects of spatiality of digital games in

223PADM 3 (2&3) pp. 223–236. © Intellect Ltd 2007.

Keywordsdigital gamesgame studiesspatialitygame artmedia studiesinteractive art

PADM_3-(2-3)_12-STOCKBURGER 11/27/07 5:57 PM Page 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

isolation, such as the discussion of game space from a narrative perspec-tive (Murray 1997), a focus on the visual aspects (Wolf 2001) or the impactsof rule systems (Juuls 2001), there seems to be no attempt to understandhow these elements are functioning as part of a system. A notable excep-tion can be seen in a brief article by Espen Aarseth who has proposed toturn towards Lefebvre’s spatial theories (Aarseth 2001: 152–169) in order topresent a reading of game spaces as allegorical spaces. Although thisopens up a very interesting perspective it seems that numerous importantaspects of Lefebvre’s theory, most importantly his take on socio-economicalaspects were neglected in this approach. Thus, this article, that is based onthoughts which are presented in more detail in a dissertation (Stockburger2006) aims to reconsider Henri Lefebvre’s writing as well as Edward Sojastake on it in the context of digital game environments and to highlightsome of the crucial elements of contemporary game spaces. This is under-taken in order to provide a theoretical approach to game space that couldserve as a means to analyse and describe aspects of spatial performancework in digital game environments. In this sense, this short article aims toprovide a basis for further research into the newly emerging field of perfor-mance art in digital game universes. It is hoped that the reader realises thatsuch an attempt is only possible through a thorough engagement withLefebvre’s original text.

The production of space as a theoretical framework for game spaceIn the introduction to his seminal work ‘The Production of Space’, Lefebvreposes a number of questions that are directed towards historical spatialconcepts from philosophy and physics. His aim is to develop a properscience of space that takes into account seemingly disparate notions ofspace. Accordingly, he sets out to ‘discover or construct a theoretical unitybetween fields which are apprehended separately, just as molecular, electro-magnetic and gravitational forces are in physics’ and states that ‘[t]he fieldswe are concerned with are, first, the physical – nature, the Cosmos; sec-ondly, the mental, including logical and formal abstractions; and, thirdly,the social’ (Lefebvre 1974: 11). These three seemingly separate spheres arequite clearly present in online game spaces; firstly, there exists a physicalspace where the player is located; secondly, there is the mentally con-structed space arising from narrative and rule based structures; and finallywe are confronted with spaces generated by the social interaction of indi-viduals, exemplified in multi-player online games as well as shared gamingsessions. It is precisely the connection between these different dimensionsthat needs to be clarified in order to understand the entirety of space invideo and computer games.

The aim of Lefebvre’s project is to analyse how space is produced onvarious levels, in the realm of codes or language, but also in practico-sensoryactivity and through the interactions between subjects. The ultimate goal is‘[t]o expose the actual production of space by bringing the various kinds ofspace and the modalities of their genesis together within a single theory’

224 Axel Stockburger


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Lefebvre 1973: 16). Seemingly, discrete elements are thus understood asflexions of the wider phenomenon of spatiality. Since space in the context ofdigital game spaces can only be fully understood if it is treated as the sumof its disparate modalities, Lefebvre’s approach seems to provide an idealframework for this undertaking.

If one concedes that games need to be practiced and played, not readwe have to accept that there is a dimension of computer games that isexperienced beyond the realm of the logos – a dimension that has to per-formed rather than decoded. Moreover, there exist aspects of space beyondthe sphere of language that can be accessed and expressed via art and play.The ideological freight that Lefebvre refers to as ‘illusion of transparency’underlies western traditions of thought that perpetuate the dominance ofthe sense of vision over all other senses. Although critical of the dominanceof the logos, Lefebvre describes space as ‘encoded’, and accordingly, itsproduction and decoding as subjected to historical transformation. Hestates that ‘[c]odes will be seen as part of a practical relationship, as partof an interaction between “subjects” and their space and surroundings’(Lefebvre 1991: 18). Here, one might pose the question how these codesrelate to language. Lefebvre outlines his position as follows: ‘[t]he strategyof centering knowledge on discourse avoids the particularly scabrous topicof the relationship between knowledge and power. It is also incapable ofsupplying reflective thought with a satisfactory answer to a theoretical ques-tion that it raises itself: do sets of non-verbal signs and symbols, whethercoded or not, systematized or not, fall into the same category as verbalsets, or are they rather irreducible to them? Among non-verbal signifyingsets must be included music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and cer-tainly theatre, which in addition to a text or pretext embraces gestures,masks, costume, a stage, a mise-en-scene – in short a space. Non-verbalsets are thus characterized by a spatiality, which is in fact irreducible to themental realm [. . .]. To underestimate, ignore and diminish space amountsto the overestimation of texts, written matter, and writing systems, alongwith the readable and the visible, to the point of assigning to these amonopoly on intelligibility’ (Lefebvre 1991: 62).

Although digital games did not exist at the time of the writing of the‘Production of Space’, it does not seem too farfetched to speculate thatthey might have been included among the practices which include ‘non-verbal signifying sets’, on a par with theatre, architecture and music. In thiscontext, it is important to recall that advocates of a ludological position ingame studies usually reject the notion of computer games as directly ‘read-able’ narrative artefacts. Indeed, games exist to be performed or played,and are similarly characterised by a spatiality that is irreducible to the realmof the logos or what, in Lefebvre’s terms, constitutes the ‘mental realm’.Thus, aspects of this notion of spatiality, namely coded and non-verbalforms seem to be well suited to account for those aspects of game spacethat are omitted by narratological approaches.

One can claim that computer games constitute a spatial practice parexcellence, operating through ‘non-verbal sets of spatial signs and symbols’

225Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary game environments


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

and addressing bodies operating in space. Since computers are machinesthat operate on a symbolical level, players are continuously confronted withsymbolic spatial representation. Those symbolic representational elementsare, however, partially rooted in ‘mental’ formations, similar to Euclidianspace or Renaissance perspective. If one assumes that important aspectsof the spatiality in computer games present themselves in a non-verbalsymbolic form, it can be argued that written language alone might not besufficient to cover the territory.

Lefebvre takes his argument further when he critiques the application ofsemiology to architecture. He is convinced that although there is always asignifying practice involved it cannot be reduced to ‘language or discourse,nor to the categories and concepts developed for the study of language’(Lefebvre 1991: 222). This is because ‘spatial work [. . .] attains a complexityfundamentally different from the complexity of a text, whether prose orpoetry’ (Lefebvre 1991: 222). A spatial work, such as a work of architectureis realised through a social practice, and ‘[t]he actions of a social practiceare expressible but not explicable through discourse; they are precisely,acted – and not read’ (Lefebvre 1991: 222). It is this dimension of actualperformance that is realised within and through a social practice thatstrikes us as a fundamental element of games in general, and mostpoignantly of multi user online games. In other words, just as space has tobe practised and experienced beyond the logic order of language, gameshave to be played/performed and it is not sufficient to study their symboli-cal surface aspects without getting involved. This aspect of play that sur-passes language into space is acknowledged by Lefebvre when he statesthat ‘[l]anguage possesses a practical function but it cannot harbour knowl-edge without masking it. The playful aspect of space escapes it, and it onlyemerges in play itself (by definition), in irony and humour’ (Lefebvre 1991:211). This, however, does not mean that knowledge production based onlanguage is rendered obsolete, which would invalidate Lefebvre’s own workof writing. The core element of his argument emphasises the importance ofpractice versus abstract and detached examination. The playful aspect ofspace is something that emerges naturally from the practico-sensory realmand has to be regarded as an integral part of the foundations of humandevelopment. It is this playful and non-rational space that Lefebvre positsagainst the rational intellectual space of Cartesian logic. He attacks theshortcomings of spatial conceptions centred on Western logos when hewrites, ‘[a] narrow and desiccated rationality [. . .] overlooks the core andfoundation of space, the total body, brain, gestures, and so forth. It forgetsthat space does not consist in the projection of an intellectual representa-tion, does not arise from the visible-readable realm, but that it is first of allheard (listened to) and enacted (through physical gestures and move-ments)’ (Lefebvre 1991: 200). This is a crucial observation, since computerand video games are quite clearly listened to and enacted through physicalgestures and movements. However, they simultaneously mobilise thevisible and the readable. This fact immediately brings about the questionhow these seemingly opposed areas might be related to each other. It is in



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

particular this connection and interplay between discrete areas thatLefebvre’s theory attempts to grasp and analyse. We have already touchedupon two distinct fields, the field of logical and rational conceptions ofspace, as defined by classical philosophy, mathematics and engineeringand the field of directly experienced space that emerges from the practico-sensory realm and that is marked by what Lefebvre calls ‘non-verbal sets ofspatiality’. Lefebvre introduces two categories to account for these divergingaspects of spatiality, namely ‘Representations of Space’ and ‘RepresentationalSpaces’. The first category stands for the realm of abstract and rational con-ceptions of space, which are tied up with philosophical thought, mathematicsas well as engineering and urban planning. Here, space is first of all conceived,planned and mapped out rationally. The second, category, ‘RepresentationalSpaces’, designates the field of direct experience gained in the ‘practico-sensory’ realm. It is the sphere of the non-verbal that differs from the formerbecause it is lived and experienced rather than intellectually constructed andprojected. ‘Spatial Practice’ maintains a dialectical relationship between‘Representations of Space’ and ‘Representational Spaces’ and is, in Lefebvre’swords, responsible for ‘production and reproduction and the particularlocations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation’ (Lefebvre1991: 33). In the following we will try to clarify in detail how these conceptsare put to work within Lefebvre’s objective, and subsequently how they canbe mobilised as a basic framework for spatiality in digital games.

A triadic structure‘A triad: that is, three elements and not two. Relations with two elementsboil down to oppositions, contrasts or antagonisms. They are defined bysignificant effects: echoes, repercussions, mirror effects’ (Lefebvre 1991:39). Here, Lefebvre is clearly indebted to Hegel’s and Marx efforts to sur-mount the structural dualisms and binary oppositions, which definedCartesian as well as Kantian, post- and neo-Kantian thought. Referring tophilosophical projects based on subject–object opposition Lefebvre writes,‘[t]heir dualism is entirely mental, and strips everything which makes forliving activity from life, thought and society (i.e. from the physical, themental and social, as from the lived, perceived and conceived)’ (Lefebvre1991: 39). Such systems of thought tend towards complete transparencyand intelligibility, thus not leaving any room for the material, physical andsocial aspects of life. Therefore, in order to understand social space as aproduct of forces that manifest themselves beyond the mental sphere, it issensible to consider the body as a starting point.

Firstly, a body in a group or society is geared towards (social) spatialpractice that presupposes bodily activity, such as movement, gestures andthe use of sensory organs. This activity amounts to what Lefebvre advancesas ‘perceived space’ or ‘[t]he practical basis of the perception of the outsideworld, to put it in psychology’s terms’ (Lefebvre 1991: 40). Secondly, repre-sentations of the body, derived from science, such as medical sciences,anatomy, physiology, form the conceived space of the body. These scientificrepresentations of the body are obviously prone to be mixed up with



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ideological contents and constantly evolve over time. This field of spatialrepresentation is posited as ‘conceived space’. Thirdly, bodily, or ‘livedspace’, in constant mediation between the former two, is highly influencedby social and cultural conventions and is accompanied by an ‘illusory’immediacy that is prefigured by symbolisms evolving from religious tradi-tions and mythologies.

Game space clearly has to be regarded as a cultural product andpractice that is informed by spaces created through the use of verbal signsor language (narrative spaces), yet it appears equally informed by a spatialpractice operating on the basis of bodily involvement in the form of ges-tures (user action) as well as non-verbal sets of symbols and signs (repre-sentational spaces). All of these dimensions of space are equally present indigital games and are constantly mediating between each other.

The question that needs to be addressed here is how this process ofmediation could be understood in spatial terms. Lefebvre defines thecontingencies of spatial practice as follows: ‘The object of knowledge is,precisely the fragmented and uncertain connection between elaboratedrepresentations of space on the one hand and representational spaces(along with their underpinnings) on the other; and this ‘object’ implies(and explains) a subject – that subject in whom lived, perceived and con-ceived (known) come together within a spatial practice’ (Lefebvre 1991:230). It follows that if ‘representations of space’, the results of a process,are the sole objects for the study of spatial practice, lived experience andwith it the genesis of the process would be omitted. In other words, it isimportant to consider the processes that surround and run through culturalartefacts, namely how they come into being and how they are experienced.Thus, in order to fully comprehend game space, the spatial practice of cre-ating and playing computer games has to be considered equally importantas the formal aspects of spatial representation.

It is crucial to stress the fact that the particular spaces generated bycomputer and videogames have to be regarded as the result of a dynamicprocess that involves numerous distinct elements such as the rules, theprogramme, the player’s active involvement as well as audiovisual symboli-cal elements. Thus, it would be quite short-sighted to concentrate on one ofthese particularities without taking into account the other elements in theprocess. In other words, rather than studying computer games as things inspace, the particular process of the production of game space has to betaken into consideration as well. On first glance, the fact that most gamesare finite cultural products seems to justify an approach that is focused onthe visible and audible content alone. Yet, precisely because they appear ascoherent entities, and the scaffolding that leads to their production hasvanished, it is crucial to investigate the process beyond the technologicalproduct within the wider realm of cultural activity. And it is here that onecan attempt to answer the question how the interdependence betweenthe ‘artificial’ socio-cultural aspects of spatiality and those based on the‘natural’ shared grounds of bodily perception could be examined. Thisinterdependence between culture and nature seems to be exactly what



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lefebvre has in mind when he introduces the Marxist notion of productioninto his framework. If space is posited as a social product, influenced byperceived space (the shared perceptional basis) as much as by conceivedspace (the culturally specific space of logical thought and language basedconceptions) it can be regarded as an implicit dialectical process that con-tains answers to our question, as well as the question itself.

If one takes this thought further, the products of spatial practice,whether they are games, performances or architecture re-enter the processas elements, which are products of a spatial practice as much as they inturn influence that same practice. It can be argued that the spatial practicearising from the production and consumption of computer games in turninfluences the general spatial practice of the subjects involved. To put itbluntly, an individual that has had the experience of playing a networkedcomputer game integrates this experience into his or her general under-standing of space. Thus one can claim that computer games are not onlyspatial socio-cultural products that give evidence of contemporary spatialconceptions but also that they influence spatial practice by introducing dif-ferent and new configurations of representational spaces. This is why theanalysis of the production of game space could in turn reveal more aboutcontemporary spatial practice than one might, at first, expect. At this point,it is necessary to return to the heuristic device mobilised by Lefebvre toexamine his model for the production of space, namely his triad of ‘per-ceived, conceived, and lived space’. He presents his conceptual triad asfollows: ‘Spatial Practice, which embraces production and reproduction,and the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each socialformation. Spatial practice ensures continuity and to some degree cohe-sion. In terms of social space, and of each member of a given society’s rela-tionship to space, this cohesion implies a guaranteed level of competenceand a specific level of performance’ (Lefebvre 1991: 33).

‘Representations of space: conceptualized space, the space of scien-tists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers, asof a certain type of artist with a scientific bent – all of whom identify what islived and what is perceived with what is conceived’ (Lefebvre 1991: 38).

‘Representational spaces: space as directly lived through its associatedimages and symbols, and hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’, butalso of some artists and perhaps of those, such as a few writers andphilosophers, who describe and aspire to do no more than describe. This isthe dominated – and hence passively experienced – space, which the imag-ination seeks to change and appropriate. It overlays physical space, makingsymbolical use of its objects. Thus representational spaces may be said,though again with certain exceptions, to tend towards more or less coher-ent systems of non-verbal symbols and signs’ (Lefebvre 1991: 83).

‘Spatial practice’ emerges from shared habitual action in a society basedon how the members of that society ‘perceive’ their environment and interactwith it. Those perceptions are informed by the dominant ‘representationsof space’, which are advanced by a particular segment of society such asscientists, theorists and engineers. ‘Representations of space’ is the sphere



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of abstract conceptions and mental models that can be highly theoretical andout of touch with everyday live. In contrast, ‘Representational space’ is under-stood as a layer of non-verbal sets of symbols that is superimposed uponphysical space. It is a realm of space that is directly lived rather than negoti-ated by conscious logic. ‘Representational space’ is a first hand experiencerather than an abstract conception. The ‘spatial practice’ of a society is theresult of a complex interaction between ‘representations of space’ and ‘repre-sentational spaces’. How do ‘spatial practice’, ‘representations of space’ and‘representational spaces’ relate to computer and video games in detail?

In Lefebvre’s view, ‘[t]he spatial practice of a society secretes thatsociety’s space; it propounds it, in a dialectical interaction; it produces itslowly and surely as it masters and appropriates it’ (Lefebvre 1991: 38). Hecharacterises spatial practice in neo-capitalist society as follows: ‘[i]tembodies a close association, within perceived space, between daily reality(daily routine) and urban reality (the routes and networks which link up theplaces set aside for work, ‘private’ life and leisure (ibid)’. Seen in this light,the spatial practice emerging from computer games reveals a lot about theconditions of post-industrial societies. For instance, one can witness a con-tinuous blurring of the boundaries between leisure and work. Not only doplay and work take place at the same physical location and on the samedevice, the individual’s PC, mobile phone or PDA. Moreover, networkedgames bring about a spatial practice that facilitates global participationand have led to the inception of novel micro-economic systems. With theenormous growth in the trade of virtual objects in MMORPG’s such asEverquest, Ultima Online or World of Warcraft that has been thoroughlyresearched by Edward Castranova (Castranova 2001), forms of play increas-ingly take on the characteristics of paid work. Another aspect of this erosionof the border between cultures of play and work has been examined indetail in relation to the modes of production in game companies (Kline,Dyer-Witheford and De-Peuter 2003). Increasingly the production of digitalgames is presented as a kind of game of its own, a playful and creativeactivity that can be enjoyed without thinking too much about overtime andextreme ‘working hours’, because it is ‘fun’. Simultaneously, concepts andpractices in the vicinity of ‘user generated content’ point in a similar direction.

Computer and video games have to be regarded as products of neo-capitalist economic structures and the spatial practice associated withthem accordingly, to paraphrase Lefebvre, ‘secretes that society’s space’. Inother words, the myriad forms of territorial domination, spatial contest andindividual struggle that appear in those artefacts are clearly related to theunderlying drives of post-modern culture. Moreover, one could argue thatcontemporary ‘spatial practice’ in Western societies is increasingly perme-ated by various forms of ‘representational spaces’ due to the enormousincrease of digital devices operating with spatial sets of non-verbalsymbols. After all, the GUI’s of operation systems in daily use by millions ofpeople all deploy non-verbal spatial metaphors. In this context, it is hard tofind a better example for ‘representational space’, than the kind of spacethat is directly lived through its associated images and symbols, generated



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

by the audiovisual spatial illusion of video and computer games. Yet, at thesame time, other aspects of computer games are clearly dominated by ‘rep-resentations of space’, that is specific conceptions of space, which can behighly abstract and clearly based on language and the logos. A spatial nar-rative or a set of rules that defines spatial action in a game belongs to thisdimension. The game designer who programmes the movement of objectsin a game according to mathematical rules and algorithms within a coordi-nate system generates specific ‘representations of space’. The player con-tinuously switches between these dimensions while playing the game. Onthe one hand the player experiences the space directly through non-verbalsets of signs and on the other hand consciously generates an abstractmental map of the space and devises strategies of action. Thus ‘spatialpractice’ in video and computer games has to be regarded as a result of thehighly dynamic mediation between ‘representations of space’ and ‘repre-sentational space’. How does this dynamic mediation unfold itself?

Lefebvre writes, ‘[t]o take in theatrical space, with its interplay betweenfictitious and real counterparts and its interaction between gazes and miragesin which actor, audience, “characters”, text, and author all come togetherbut never become one. By means of such theatrical interplay bodies areable to pass from a “real”, immediately experienced space (the pit, thestage) to a perceived space – a third space which is no longer scenic orpublic. At once fictitious and real, this third space is classical theatre space’(Lefebvre 1991: 188). Here we are dealing with theatre, a cultural form thathas already served Brenda Laurel (Laurel 1991) as the central metaphor, forher examination of enactment and active performance in human computerinteraction.

Lefebvre points out that ‘[t]heatrical space certainly implies a represen-tation of space – scenic space – corresponding to a particular conception ofspace (that of the classical drama, say – or the Elizabethan, or the Italian).The representational space, mediated yet directly experienced, whichinfuses the work and the moment, is established as such through the dra-matic action itself’ (Lefebvre 1991: 188). This is a crucial point in relation togame space and it can be paraphrased as follows: the spatial practice sur-rounding computer games is on the one hand defined by spatial modalitiesthat belong to the field of ‘representations of space’, such as particularrules defining spatial performance, verbal conventions of spatial narrative,conceptions guiding the construction of audiovisual spatial representations(various modes of perspective) and on the other hand established by directly‘lived’ experience and active construction of ‘representational spaces’. Inother words, there are elements, which act as foundations, as basic spatialconceptions, for the fluid and action-based directly experienced (per-formed) space of the moment, resulting in a coherent ‘spatial practice’.Here we need to address the importance of Lefebvre’s notion of ‘livedspace’ from a slightly different perspective by briefly introducing one of themost prominent commentators of Lefebvre’s work. Edward Soja presentshis re-reading of the spatial triad in the form of what he terms the ‘trialectics’of ‘First-, Second- and Thirdspace’. He provides a post-modern reading of



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lefebvre’s project. ‘Firstspace’ is identified as the directly perceived ‘mater-ial side’ of space and ‘Firstspace’ epistemes are described as ‘[f ]ocusingtheir primary attention on the “analytical decipherment” of what Lefebvrecalls spatial practice or perceived space, a material and materialized “phys-ical” spatiality that is directly comprehended in empirically measurable con-figurations’ (Soja 1996: 74). Thus ‘Firstspace’ is also the area of theaforementioned, illusion of opacity, the tendency to ‘[p]rivilege objectivityand materiality [. . .]’ (Soja 1996: 75). Subsequently, ‘Secondspace’ epistemesare advanced as guided by ‘[t]heir explanatory concentration on conceivedrather than perceived space and their implicit assumption that spatialknowledge is primarily produced through discursively devised representa-tions of space, through the spatial workings of the mind’ (Soja 1996:78–79). This is the space of the ‘illusion of transparency’, the tendency totreat every kind of knowledge about reality as a result of reflective thought,thus granting the reign to the res cogito. The element that differs mostfrom Lefebvre’s original text in Soja’s interpretation is his version of ‘livedspace’ or ‘Thirdspace’. He basically defines ‘Thirdspace’ epistemologies as‘[a]rising from the sympathetic deconstruction and heuristic reconstructionof the Firstspace-Secondspace duality [. . .]’ (Soja 1996: 81). For Soja,‘Thirdspace’ is the necessary other for the duality of real and imaginedspace and he introduces Borge’s ‘Aleph’ as a metaphor for it. In his rendi-tion ‘Thirdspace’ seems to become the post-modern container of differ-ence, otherness and novel approaches. Thus he leaves the definition for‘Thirdspace’ as open as possible, to be filled with all concepts and strate-gies leading to new possibilities and places. Here, ‘lived space’ becomes avery far-reaching placeholder for everything that cannot be defined either by‘First-’ or ‘Secondspace’ approaches. Soja’s reading brings Lefebvre downto earth when he identifies perceived space (Firstspace) with the real, andconceived space (Secondspace) with the imaginary, leading to lived space(Thirdspace) as a field of both, imagined and real. The hybrid mix between realand imagined spaces that is provided by digital game universes reverberatesstrongly with this conception of ‘Thirdspace’. This insight is crucial because itdefies the idea of computer games as merely ‘virtual’ and purely imaginaryspaces. It is precisely the interaction between real and imagined spatiality thatmakes this medium so compelling and unique. The spatial practice emergingfrom computer games has to be regarded as a hybrid between physical (thehome or a LAN tornament with hundreds of players) and imagined spaces(representational aspects of generated by the game engine).

At this point we would like to advance a set of different spatial modali-ties that can be separated according to their functions and qualities in thegame space, namely user space, narrative space, rule space, audiovisualrepresentational space and kinaesthetic space, and to position them withinthe framework of Lefebvre’s spatial model. Firstly, user space is understoodas the physical location of the ‘spatial practice’ emerging from gameplay. Ithas a social dimension, since it is the location of players who meet andinteract with each other. Accordingly, within Lefebvre’s triad it can be identi-fied with ‘perceived space’. Secondly, the modalities of narrative space (text



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

and/or speech based elements) and rule space (the rules of the simulationsystem) are language-based abstract dimensions and thus belong to therealm of ‘conceived space’. Thirdly, the modality of kinaesthetic space (thebodily connection between player and game space facilitated via the inter-face) is closely linked with Lefebvre’s notion of ‘lived space’, since it desig-nates the bodily link between player and game, which is establishedthrough the interface in conjunction with the non-verbal sets of spatialsymbols produced by the audiovisual representational modality of space.

What makes Lefebvre’s theory so significant for the development of anovel perspective on game space is his precise analysis of different types ofspace and the notion of the dynamic interplay between them, resulting inthe notion of ‘spatial practice’. Accordingly, all of the above categories haveto be regarded as interlinked modalities in a dynamic process that results inthe ‘spatial practice’ of computer game play. To illustrate, the ‘spatial prac-tice’ emerging from playing an online MMORPG like World of Warcraftcould be sketched as follows: it takes place in a specific user space (thehome of the player or a public internet cafe) and it involves representationsof space such as narrative space (you are in a specific region of the gameuniverse azeroth and can travel to different regions in order to find items orplay quests) and rule space (which defines the values and behaviour ofobjects in the game space) as well as the audiovisual representationalaspects (the threedimensional rendering of the game universe, objects andavatars) and finally the kinaesthetic modality (the link between the player’sbody, via the keyboard and mouse interface to the avatar) that makes thegame a directly lived, visceral experience. Furthermore, the spatial practiceemerging from World of Warcraft also includes the continuous develop-ment of new territories and maps by the company Blizzard as well as thesocial interactions before and during gameplay. As this brief sketch demon-strates, on the one hand, it would be impossible to deny the connectionsbetween those spatial modalities; on the other hand they all have individualand distinctive characteristics that have to be accounted for.

Performative interventions in online gamesTo bring the argument to a close and highlight avenues for further researchit seems sensible to briefly introduce the work of artists who are criticallyengaging with different aspects of the spatial modalities that have beenadvanced above. The American artist Josef DeLappe, for example, hasstarted a series of ‘online performances’ in networked game environments.In the piece “War Poets Online” from 2004 he logs onto servers of thepopular Ego-shooter ‘Medal of Honour’ and starts to type poetry of Warpoets from World War I such as Siegfried Sassoon or Wilfried Owen. In aninterview with Jan Winet he says ‘[f ]rom the start, I was considering thepoetry readings in the games as being a new kind of street theatre. [. . .]When I first started doing these performances online they were also veryprivate. The idea of doing these before an audience came later. [. . .] Thesewere quite individual encounters in an online server where there might betwenty other gamers who may or may not be paying attention to the fact



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

that there was somebody typing these odd texts into the gamespace. Thestrategy was to exist as a neutral visitor – I did not engage in the gameplay –at least not in the prescribed manner. There was also something quitecurious about performing poetry, only to be killed and reincarnated again,and again. Bringing the performative aspect into these hyperviolent spaceswas, in a way, an intervention, an aesthetic protest. There is a level of wry,satirical humour to it as well. It was also very poignant, particularly doing“The War Poets”. I started doing these after September 11th when we wereinvading Afganistan and into the present as we were heading into Gulf War 2’(Winet 2006: 98). DeLappe’s practice can be regarded as an attempt toengage with the audiences of online games in the form of a performancebased on the narrative modalities that make up the game space. As he haspointed out in other interviews, his work sometimes leads to highly contro-versial discussions in the chat channels that are part of the games and thusinitiate a critical discourse that reflects the actions of players. However mar-ginal this approach might seem at first, it amounts to a realisation of thefact that contemporary game environments represent public spaces thatcan be used for performance based artistic interventions. This practice onlyhints at the kinaesthetic potential inherent in these games since the artistleaves his own avatar to be continuously shot and killed. However, thispractice can be seen as a perfect example for performances in digital gamesthat are geared towards the symbolical field provided by the representa-tions of space.

A work that addresses what we have introduced as the kinaestheticmodality of game space, namely the bodily link between the player’s motoricspace and the game space can be seen in Eddo Stern’s ‘Runners Everquest”(1999–2000). The installation confronts the user with three different pro-jections and three computer mice connected to them. Each mouse steersthe movement of a character, which is present in real-time in the popularonline MMRPG Everquest. In this sense the piece also amounts to anonline game performance and Eddo Stern notes on his website that thegame performance ran for exactly 180 days. Stern deliberately confuses theplayer’s kinaesthetic link between interface device and avatar by multiplyingthe options. Since it is impossible for a single player to control threeavatars simultaneously, the direct link between interface device and avataris put into question. Stern writes ‘[u]sing a custom made “Triple Mouse”’participants can, and must control all three characters, who simultaneouslynavigate a separate area of the game world, respectively. The player isforced to make a decision about which character to embody and which toabandon, while a varying live web-audience of thousands follows his or herperformance within the online game’ (Stern 1999). The simple multiplicationof avatars/interfaces sharply highlights the questions regarding embodi-ment and kinaesthetic space. Furthermore, ‘Runners: Everquest’ develops ahighly complex spatial setup since the piece connects one user space (inthis case the gallery) with three different locations in the game space of theonline game and thus three different audiovisual representational spaces(although they all follow the same pattern defined by a 3rd person camera).



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

In this way, the singular connection between player and avatar that guaran-tees the function of embodiment within the game is shattered and theplayer has to come to terms with the fact that he/she has to simultaneouslycontrol 3 different Game Egos in three different locations of the gameuniverse. Stern’s piece amounts to a critical study of game conventions andclearly highlights the central role of the kinaesthetic link between player andavatar. In this sense it amounts to a questioning of the realm that is highlyspecific for digital game environments and that reverberates strongly withLefebvre’s lived space. In Stern’s installation the link between physicalembodiment (lived space) and sign based audiovisual space (representa-tional space) is deliberately interrupted and thus brought to the foreground.Here the impact of game space on the potential of contemporary perfor-mance pieces becomes obvious. For example, it might be very productivefor contemporary performance artists to consider the possibilities of avatarmultiplication as a means of increasing the echo of embodied presence indigital game spaces.

It is hoped that the close reading of Levebvre’s spatial theories that hasbeen undertaken in this article may provide directions for further researchinto the unique spatiality that forms the core of contemporary digital gameenvironments. If we consider that these game spaces have become a stagefor contemporary artists and performers it is necessary to understand howhis unique spatiality inform these works. Most importantly, the proposedtheoretical approach might enable a way of integrating issues that that areoften considered in separation, such as the socio-economical and politicalimpact of those immersive universes, thereby encompassing the perspec-tives of producers, players as well as artists who are starting to interveneand reflect the consequences of mediated performative actions. The growingimportance of this ‘third place’, that emerges from the complex interplay ofspatial modalities, for contemporary artists and audiences has become ahighly dynamic field of action that ranges from fan culture to the arena offine arts in the 21st century and thus has to be considered worthy of furtherinvestigation.

ReferencesAarseth, E.J. (2001), ‘Allegories of Space: The Question of Spatiality in

Computergames’, in Eskelinen, M. and Koskimaa, R. (eds.) (2002), CybertextYearbook 2000, Jyväskylä: Research Center for Contemporary Culture, Universityof Jyväskylä, pp. 152–169.

Castranova, E. (2001), ‘Virtual worlds:A First-Hand Account of Market and Societyon the Cyberian Frontier’, The Gruter Institute Working Papers on Law,Economics, and Evolutionary Biology, 2. Accessed 8 August 2006. Available athttp://www.bepress.com/giwp/default/vol2/iss1/art1/current_article.html

Juuls, J. (1999), ‘A Clash Between Game and Narrative’, MA Thesis, University ofCopenhagen, Institute of Nordic Language and Literature, Copenhagen.

Kline, S., Dyer-Witheford, N. and De-Peuter, G. (eds.) (2003), Digital Play: TheInteraction of Technology, Culture, and Marketing, Quebec: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press.

Laurel, B. (1991), Computers as Theatre, Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lefebvre, H. (1991), The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002), Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge Classics.

Merrifield, A. (2000), ‘Henri Lefebvre: A Socialist In Space’, in Crang, M. and Thrift, N.(eds.), Thinking Space, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 167–182.

Murray, J.H. (1997), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Soja, E. (1996), Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real and ImaginedPlaces, Oxford: Blackwell.

Stern, E. (1999), ‘Runners: Everquest’, Online Game Performance, Website. Accessed7 August 2005. Available at http://www.eddostern.com/runnersEQ.html

Stockburger, A. (2006), ‘The Rendered Arena: Modalities of Space in Video andComputer Games’, Doctoral Thesis, Awarded by the London Institute (LCC).

Winet, J. (2003), ‘In Conversation Fall 2003: An Interview with Joseph DeLappe’, inClarke, A. and Mitchell, G. (eds.) (2007), Videogames and Art, Intellect Books,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, M.J.P. (2001), ‘The Medium Of The Video Game’, Austin, TX: University ofTexas Press.

Suggested citationStockburger, A. (2007), ‘Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary

game environments’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3:2&3, pp. 223–236, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.223/1

Contributor detailsAxel Stockburger is an artist and theorist who lives and works in London andVienna. He studied at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna with Peter Weibel andholds a PhD from the University of the Arts, London. His films and installationsare shown internationally. Among other projects he has initiated the independentart television channel TIV in Vienna in 1998 and collaborated on internationalprojects with the London based media art group D-Fuse (2000–2004). At presenthe works as scientific staff member at the Department for Visual Arts andDigital Media/Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. More information can be found athttp://www.stockburger.co.uk. Contact: Axel Stockburger, Academy of Fine ArtsVienna, Institute of Visual Arts, Lehargasse 8, A-1060 Vienna, Austria.E-mail: [email protected]



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary game environments