Disclaimer

The thoughts expressed in this blog posts are my own and as such do not reflect on any one person at TAG. My intention is not to restrict or depreciate TAG, nor to cause anyone undue harm. Like Latour’s Observer, I am but one voice trying to make sense of what could potentially be classified as “disorder” – however, does order necessarily need to be established? I do not think so.

This week we looked at Bruno Latours’ Laboratory Life, an influential book on what is called “laboratory studies”. In the first few chapters Latour’s Observer conducts an ethnographic study of a group of scientists and their day to day activities in a laboratory. Based on their own understanding of science and literature, the observer is able to produce hypotheses about laboratory life and what it produces (documents and scientific facts).   However, “where the naïve observer visited the “strange” laboratory, it is clear that he constructed his preliminary accounts out of disorder. He neither knew what to observe, nor the names of the objects in front of him. In contrast to his informants, who exhibited confidence in all their actions, our observer felt distinctly uneasy” (255).

This led me to my own observations about TAG, the Technoculture, Arts and Game lab right across from our class.

What is Tag?

Walking in one might see

• Computers, video game consoles, a game library
• Sewing material, Sewing machine and a 3D printer
• Blackboard, desks, tables, chairs
• Designated quiet study rooms

When entering the room one might be confused as to the form of knowledge and “facts” that TAG produces. Where else could you see sewing machines interacting with games?  

Going to their site leads to slightly more information about the meaning of TAG:

Technoculture, Art and Games (TAG) is an interdisciplinary centre for research/creation in game studies and design, digital culture and interactive art based at Concordia University in Montréal.  TAG brings together scholars, artists, designers, engineers and students from all departments at Concordia and we welcome participants from other universities, the game and media arts industries and community based groups.  See our members page.At the heart of TAG is a shared interest and concern with digital games as exemplary objects for cultural research, artistic creation, technical innovation and social mediation, all in the context of an expanding information society and the changing fabric of everyday life.TAG has a triple mandate to:

• » Initiate and support collaborative research/creation of projects in digital game studies and design, both at the student and faculty levels.
• » Build bridges and establish partnerships with games related industries, independent game developers and international researchers and artists.
• » Actively explore and develop viable models of interdisciplinary research collaboration.
• http://tag.hexagram.ca/about/

Additionally, at our first meeting this year, the group came up with the idea that TAG is all that is “game-y”: anything (creative projects, research, etc) that could and can relate to games. But then, what are games? What is “game-y”?

Here’s the catch: if we were to study a multi-disciplinary laboratory like TAG in a similar way to Laboratory Life, and Latour’s Observer, we would realize that the “scientists” in this lab are students. Not only students, but students from different fields. Students from the english department, communication, media, computer engineering, fine arts, computation arts, and the list goes on.

So what does that mean and why is this important to TAG?  How does it differ from the lab that Latour’s observer observed?

In Laboratory Life, the observer oversaw the daily activities of a lab focused on creating academic papers about a single topic, Neuroendocrinology. The work force – all those who are part of the lab, have an important part to play in the creation of documents that establish “facts” about the one topic they are studying. At Tag, we could say that the “single topic” is games, however, the plurality of projects –the sheer differences in what the “scientists” are doing at TAG — are in many ways so different that they could technically only link to other projects in that they are from the same lab. TAG’s output comes in numerous forms; interactive projects, wearable technology, programs, games, game studies, scholarly articles — and so much more.

Could we even study TAG as Latour’s observer studied the laboratory? Perhaps over a period of two years the observer would begin to understand everything that was happening, however, TAG is not a typical 8-17h lab, the lab is open 24/7 for its members — would this require the observer to stay overnight to oversee those projects that only happen after hours, or would they necessarily have to omit these from their observation?

Additionally, asking individual members about their projects and why they think it is important leads to a plethora of answers. In my experience, I find that TAG members are more likely to defend what they are working on than my friends in the science department. I myself as a member constantly feel the need to express why my work in games studies is important to contemporary society, and this is perhaps because we are still a growing research field.  Although Game Studies is becoming more influential and accredited we are still carving our own place (as demonstrated in the growing fields of game research in universities such as Concordia, Mcgill, MIT, and with conferences and publications such as Digital Game Research Association, and Game Studies, a crossdisciplinary journal dedicated to computer games research).

When asked to explain what TAG meant to them, members scribbled and filled a black board with comments.  I only have the remnants of part of this conversation, namely: What is TAG?

When I asked a few members what TAG meant to them, I received different answers (for the sake of brevity I will only post two):

For me, the lab space is foremost a place to be “alone together” (not in the negative sense of Sherry Turkle’s book either). As grad students, we tend to be absorbed in our own individual work, but being surrounded by people who are also working can be energizing, or at least comforting (because we’re all equally stressed and miserable). There is periodic human interaction, sometimes intellectually pertinent, sometimes refreshingly frivolous. People are there if you read something you want to share, or need help with something.

It’s also nice to have a bounded space designated for work. I can leave the distractions of home and go to a place and say, “As long as I’m here, I’m gonna get shit done.” Then, if I feel like I got enough done, I won’t have to spend my evening at home feeling like I should be working. When working at home, it’s harder to focus, and also harder to decide when the work day is over.

[anonymous]

Although I’ve only joined TAG this semester, it has always appeared to be a hub of like-minded individuals who appreciate video games as more than just a frivolity – and rightfully so.  For me, personally, TAG embodies a validation of my interests that has been lacking throughout my life, as people are quick to write off video games as inconsequential and frivolous. To find a space where this is not the prevalent mindset has made it an oasis of sorts. When compounded with TAG’s politics (and particularly its safer spaces policies), it seems like even more of a rare gem, as far as game-centric communities goes. At the same time, as one of the handful of undergrad members and certainly one of the less experienced, it’s easy to feel intimidated – but I’m looking forward to getting more involved.

[anonymous]

“When an anthropological observer enters the field, one of his most fundamental preconceptions is that he might eventually be able to make sense of the observations and notes which he records. This, after all, is one of the basic principles of scientific enquiry. No matter how confused or absurd the circumstances and activities of his tribe might appear, the ideal observer retains his faith that some kind of a systematic, ordered account is attainable.” (Latour 43) – however, I wonder, if the anthropological observer entered Tag would they be able to observe some kind of “systematic, ordered account”? Can the plurality of voices at TAG be condensed to just one idea, or is it impossible to view TAG through this lens?

What is interesting in observing TAG as an ethnographer now is that I can look back on my first experience back in 2013. Latour explains, “lack of familiarity with disciplines outside natural science can provoke suspicion” (Latour 19).  When I learned about TAG, I was only beginning my undergraduate degree and had no idea game studies was a field of research. I was very interested and wanted to participate. In one of my courses, my professor encouraged us to use the desktops in the TAG atelier room (the same room we use for class). I was met with suspicion.  

TAG is very different now than it was before. It was hidden away in the hall connected to the washroom with no signs to tell you of its existence.  First, we might want to explore why it was hidden and how this might impact the way others will understand the lab. Does their research need hiding? Was it something the school was not ready to share with the general school population?  

I knock on the door, nervous.  I’ve never been to this room and I feel intimidated: the door is closed and locked, the windows frosted. A male opens the door and looks at me skeptically.  The lights are dark.  They ask me if I need “help” and I tell them that I am here to play a computer game for class and that my professor had told us we could use the computers.  I am an outsider and they grudgingly let me in, four more guys peering at my from their computers.

I settle down at a computer and turn it on. Oh-oh, what’s the password?

I turn to the quiet group working:

• do you know what the password is?

Two of them are on other computers across from where I am sitting while the other three are sitting at a table looking at a Mac book screen.

• “No, sorry, I don’t know”, “Tag hasn’t given you the password?” They all mutter and keep looking at me with narrowed and suspicious eyes. They are not rude per say, but I know that they are withholding the information from me. I am not one of them. I must fend for myself.

Thinking logically, i find the password (on the computer case!) and log on. We all work in silence until I leave. No one has spoken to me, and the lights have remained off the entire time.

I still feel nervous the next times I go to the TAG atelier room to work on something, but I start seeing the same people working in the room and the suspicion begins to ebb (but never truly leaving)

Today TAG is much more open – especially with their open door policy, and while some people might still react with unease and suspicion at first, members are quick to help newcomers (through tours, information, etc).

To go back to my previous line of thought on the placement of TAG, what does it mean today that the room has changed location to a more accessible location? What does it mean that the room is much bigger now and more open–that in addition it has an open door policy?  The open door policy could be a way to encourage students to explore the lab, to explore the different projects we do and why we do them. Does the open door policy allow Concordia to validate TAG’s hard work?  Although, one student did say in our class TAG is still pretty hidden in that it is on the 11th floor (the top floor), and has little to no promotional posters or advertising.

Again, I would like to say that these are my own observations and not necessarily those of TAG.

There is no one right way to talk about TAG. However, observing TAG and allowing Concordians and the community access to TAG through the open door policy might have a beneficial effect to the way TAG produces and circulates knowledge. Additionally, “The study of laboratories has brought to the fore the full spectrum of activities involved in the production of knowledge” (Cetina NP) and this is no less true when observing TAG with its plethora of projects, and its multidisciplinary nature.

A question remains though:

Are we part of TAG too then? Does our work inform TAG? We share their space.  And finally, what does it mean that multidisciplinary laboratories that combine so many different programs exist? By combining our knowledge together (knowledge from the English department, Computer Science department, Arts departments, Dance, Music, etc, etc) we are informing each other’s work and creating new knowledge that takes into consideration more than just one field. What kind of “facts”, what kind of “artifacts” and knowledge can this combination create in the grander scheme?

CETINA, KARIN KNORR. “7 Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science.” Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Ed. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Peterson, and Trevor Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1995. 140-67. SAGE Research Methods. Web. 30 Oct. 2015. https://srmo.sagepub.com/view/handbook-of-science-and-technology-studies/d12.xml

Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986. Google. PDF. http://home.ku.edu.tr/~mbaker/CSHS503/LatourLabLif.pdf

Websites:

Schools:

http://gram.cs.mcgill.ca/

http://tag.hexagram.ca/

https://mitpress.mit.edu/disciplines/game-studies

Game studies journals:

http://gamestudies.org/1501

http://www.digra.org/