[iDC] Online Games, Virtual Economies … Distinction between Play and Production

goldfarmers.jpgJulian Dibbell wrote: “Hi, folks. Trebor invited me to post a bit about a cluster of topics that has been the focus of my thinking and reporting for the last few years: Online games, virtual economies, and the increasingly elusive distinction between play and production in the digitally networked world.

Some context: In June I published an article in the New York Times Magazine called The Life of the Chinese Gold Farmer, profiling a few of the roughly 100,000 young people in China who work in factory-like gaming workshops, playing massively multiplayer online games like World of Warcraft 12 hours a day for about US$0.30 an hour. The material conditions of these jobs are spartan-to-grim, but their product is a thing of fantasy and light: From the corpses of the virtual monsters they spend their work days slaying, the workers harvest magic armor, powerful weapons, and above all the coveted coins of precious metal that typically serve as currency within MMO games. These goods, in turn, can be sold by their employers, for real money, to online retailers who in turn sell them, for even more real money, to players in the West who use them to get ahead in virtual careers that not infrequently take up as much of their time and energy as their real-life jobs do.

For people who have never played an MMO, it can be difficult to grasp what drives this peculiar economic circuit — or to believe that it supports an annual exchange of well over 1 billion U.S. dollars worth of real money for virtual goods (a figure that, in some analyses, extrapolates to a total gross domestic product for the world’s MMOs of about US$28 billion, in the neighborhood of Sri Lanka’s or Lebanon’s).

But the Times article does a pretty good job, I think, of ironing out any mysteries, and you can read the full text of it here.

Or if you care to dive deeper into the phenomenon, you could read my book “Play Money: Or How I Quit My Day Job and Made Millions Trading Virtual Loot,” an account of the year I spent attempting to earn a living solely from trafficking in the virtual goods of the classic MMO Ultima Online. While the attempt met with limited success (my earnings reached the millions only as valued in UO’s local currency, the Britannian gold piece, which trades at about 300,000 to the dollar), but it gave me a chance to get to know and write about a rich cast of characters who’ve done much better by themselves with the game.

And it also got me thinking my way toward a larger argument I’ve had sufficient nerve to call a theory of ludocapitalism but not quite enough to take altogether seriously. I genuinely think there’s something to it, though, and so, in hopes that the best and brightest among you might confirm me in (or disabuse me of) that belief, I’m going to try to lay it out for you now by way of an annotated excerpt or two from the book:

The argument first crops up in an early chapter about the first known gold farm, a Tijuana operation set up by a U.S. outfit called Blacksnow Interactive. “What Blacksnow’s story was trying to tell me about contemporary economic life,” I conclude, “was this: It is becoming play. A game.”

The thesis proceeds: “This is not an entirely unprecedented observation. ‘Casino capitalism’ is political-economist Susan Strange’s label for an international economic system in which speculative financial dealings—wagers in all but name—have come to dwarf in monetary value the global trade in goods and services. More broadly, cultural theorists such as Jean Baudrillard and Guy Debord have argued, in various ways, that life under advanced capitalism immerses us all in a largely imaginary reality, a media-saturated Disneyland-writ-large, drained of the heft and consequence that have historically distinguished real life from play. Or, if you like a little more kung fu in your critical theory, you can find the same argument roughed out in The Matrix, where, in an unsettlingly familiar future, the daily grind of economic production turns out to be no more than the rules of what is essentially a vast multiplayer computer game (and where Baudrillard’s critique of postmodernity as ‘the desert of the real’ is quoted 20 minutes into the narrative, just so you don’t miss the point).

My point, however, is both narrower and more sweeping. I’m not talking about games as a metaphor. I’m talking about games as a symptom; about Pac-Man, Asteroids, Mortal Kombat, Counter-Strike, Halo, World of Warcraft, and the fast-growing, multibillion-dollar computer-game industry in general as the side effect of a far profounder development in the history of play: its decisive infiltration of that most serious of human pursuits, the creation of wealth. I’m suggesting that when the economic system of the world has come to such a pass that the labor of online gamers can contribute more to the global GDP than 2 out of 3 sovereign nations, then no proper account of that system can neglect to account for its relationship to play. And I’m arguing, finally, that that relationship is one of convergence; that in the strange new world of immateriality toward which the engines of production have long been driving us, we can now at last make out the contours of a more familiar realm of the insubstantial—the realm of games and make-believe. In short, I’m saying that Marx had it almost right: Solidity is not melting into air. Production is melting into play.

In the subsequent chapters we meet, among many others, Troy Stolle (an Indianapolis union carpenter whose nightly efforts toward achieving a US$750 castle of his own in Ultima Online eerily paralleled the hammer-pounding tedium of his day job) and the ghosts, respectively, of Johan Huizinga (whose “Homo Ludens,” arguably, inspired Roger Caillois, the Situationist International, and others to take up play as both a foundational and a historically transformative element of culture) and Alan Turing (a man not usually thought of as a social theorist but whose seminal theories of computation, to say nothing of his famous Turing test, fairly bristle with latent recognitions of the ludic mechanisms at the heart of digitally mediated existence). Then, after the bumpy ride of my brief career as a ludocapitalist has ended, I return to a final stab at summing up the theory, such as it is, as follows:

“It was official: Work is play and play is work. The only question now was what that possibly could mean.

Not that I hadn’t already given that one some thought. By now I had finally read my Huizinga and my Caillois and the Situationists on play—and found them bracing in their variously elegiac, analytic, and inflamed attempts to salvage play from the margins that modernity had cast it into. They were everything I could have hoped for, in fact, in that long-ago moment [the moment that had led to my decision to go into virtual trading in the first place] when I’d watched my [two-year-old] daughter rapt in play and wondered how it was that daily life, and work especially, could have fallen so far from that state of grace without provoking, somewhere, a critique as eloquent as the howls Lola would have loosed if I had snatched her up just then from the wonder of her toys.

Except that this was not that moment any longer, and what I wondered now was what exactly those impassioned 20th century ludologists—no friends of the modern productive regime, insistent that ‘play, radically broken from a confined ludic time and space, must invade the whole of life’ [‘Contribution to a Situationist Definition of Play,’ Internationale Situationniste #1 (June 1958)]—would make of the invasion that was finally coming to pass. Could the daily grind of a Chinese gold farmer possibly be the ludic utopia they’d had in mind?

Could they find a way to celebrate the nightly drudgery that had built Troy Stolle’s tower, or make out anything like liberation in the strange reshaping of production it seemed to herald?

Consider this: In an essay on work and play in MMOs, the psychologist Nicholas Yee proposes a thought experiment. ‘Given that MMORPGs are creating environments where complex work is becoming seductively fun, Yee asks, ‘how difficult would it be for MMORPG developers to embed real work into these environments?’ As one possibility, he suggests that the screening of diagnostic scans for cancer be outsourced not to low-wage technicians in India—as is routinely done now—but to players who would actually pay to do the job, so long as it contributed to the advancement of their characters. The proposition is at least as plausible as the Chinese gold farms, and implemented in a science-fiction world like Star Wars: Galaxies, it wouldn’t even disrupt the players’ immersion in that world.

Nor is Yee’s thought experiment entirely hypothetical. The multiuser online world There, as Yee points out, started out as a sort of semi-covert test-marketing environment, in which companies like Levi’s and Nike paid There to let its paying customers wear virtual versions of the companies’ products. When this attempt at extracting value from player activity didn’t pan out, There, Inc., renamed itself Forterra and shifted its focus to a similar exercise in interweaving the playful and the productive: supplying the U.S. Armed Forces with vast, multisoldier training grounds in cyberspace, virtual Kuwaits, Afghanistans, and Baghdads.

The military, of course—with its rich history of war games dating back through the 18th century Prussian Kriegsspiel to the Persian origins of chess—has long been ground zero for the confusion of play and productivity, but lately it seems to be outdoing itself. Never mind the military’s collaborations with game producers to create marketably playable simulations like Pandemic Studios’ Full Spectrum Warrior. The rumor these days is that planners at the Pentagon have adopted as a kind of Bible Orson Scott Card’s science-fiction novel Ender’s Game—in which a small army of children believe themselves to be playing a sophisticated video game when in fact they are telematically leading a campaign to annihilate a race of ruthless space invaders. (How many of these planners, I wonder, have read the sequel, in which the leader of these children spends the rest of his life atoning for the richly complicated sin of unknowing genocide?)

And if all this strikes you still as rather more speculative than momentous, consider, then, the increasingly ludic production of that most transformative of contemporary commodities: computer software.

There’s a website called, where programmers compete in juried contests to win prizes for the best computer programs for a given task, while the site itself sells off the winning programs at a profit. It’s a quirky little business model, not much imitated and not especially well known, yet it illuminates a similar but much more talked-about phenomenon: the production of open-source software, in which dozens or hundreds or thousands of unpaid programmers join in loose collaboration to create a computer program none of them will own and anyone can modify. With open-source software running most of the Internet’s infrastructure and the open-source Linux operating system making serious inroads against Microsoft Windows on business and government desktops, tremendous effort now goes into figuring out what sustains so much and such high-quality ‘amateur’ product. But what hundreds of analyses of the open-source software movement have failed to get a handle on is precisely what TopCoder builds its business on the essentially playful urges behind open-source production.

Why do they do it, the TopCoders and the open-source programmers and the free-software hackers? Not for salaries, obviously, or for the cash prizes, really, or even for the high-minded philosophical reasons most often and most closely examined—the commitments to open-source methodology as a more socially responsible or technically powerful way of writing software. No: above all they do it for the agonistic glory of having their contributions singled out for inclusion in the final product and the ineffably geeky joys of writing the slickest code you can. ‘Jouissance’ is the broad term anthropologist of technology Gabriella Coleman applies to this ludic impulse at the heart of open-source creation, but Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, has put it more plainly: ‘The computer itself is entertainment,’ he declared in his foreword to Pekka Himanen’s ‘The Hacker Ethic,’ an elucidation of the ideas behind open-source creation.

Consider it all, then. Look at Troy Stolle’s late-night pointing and clicking, at Blacksnow’s sweatshop, at Nick Yee’s cancer-screening parable, at the military’s dreams of death-dealing games and the hackers’ play at writing code that works. Each on its own might not amount to a historic moment, but looking at them all together I can’t help sensing the emergence of a curious new industrial revolution, driven by play as the first was driven by steam. As steam did then, so now play lives among us as a phenomenon long ignored by the machinery of production—evanescent, vaporous, unexploited—and inasmuch as production abhors a vacuum, it was perhaps just a matter of time before it moved to colonize the vacant, vacuous space of play.”

Such were my thoughts, at any rate, in the weeks after the Times confirmed the existence of the Chinese gold farms. And like I said, I was at a loss to fit them into the frame of reference I had found in (and once shared with) Huizinga, Caillois, the Situationists, and other high-modern champions of play. For all of them, to one degree or another, the modern system of production was so radically unplayful that even imagining that system capable of incorporating the energy of play would have been a challenge: Any such incorporation, in their view, could only subvert the system or destroy the play.

And yet, if you think about it, the logic of the system isn’t really so antithetical to play as that. In fact, if you think about it hard enough, you might conclude that play is where that logic has been headed all along. Max Weber, for instance, who thought about it very hard indeed, seems to say exactly that in those final pages of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism where he denounces the ‘iron cage’ of meaningless hyperefficiency the Puritan economic reformation has left us in, in which ‘the idea of duty in one’s calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs.’ Those are the oft-quoted words anyway. Just below them in the same passage, however, Weber curiously yet much less famously suggests that dead religious beliefs don’t only survive as ghosts: ‘In the field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport [emphasis added].’

Weber doesn’t elaborate the point, but it makes sense: Drained of the religious significance that gave it meaning, the economic system we inhabit must either bind us to its pointlessness against our wills—a costly proposition, like any prison system—or contrive new meanings for our daily grind. And what easier way is there of contriving meaningful activity than through the mechanisms of play? Add computers to the historical picture, effectively building those mechanisms into the technological foundation of the world economy, and the contriving gets so easy that it starts to look inevitable. The grind must sooner or later become a game.”

(Props to Thomas Malaby, Pat Kane, McKenzie Wark, Keith Hart, and others on the list who’ve hit some of these same notes elsewhere. Special thanks to David Weinberger, whose 3000 words of excerpt age emboldened me to forward my 2000, but who can’t be blamed if mine fail to engage or provoke as effectively as his.)

Julian Dibbell

Pat Kane wrote:

Eloquent, Julian, many thanks for posting. And kudos to you for citing the “sporting” run-on from Weber’s famous quote – always one of my favourite seminar-room parlour tricks…

If it’s OK to proceed these arguments on iDC by recycling recent productions (and hey! we can do that playfully!), let me post an exchange I had in an article called Dialoguing Play, published in Ephemera, where I debate my ‘play ethic’ thesis with some critical management theorists at the University of York. ( I think it might bring something to the development of what Alexander Galloway calls a ‘play theory of value’ (as opposed to a labour theory of value). And yes, I did write the Play Ethic with the Weber thesis in mind – but only because Manuel Castells brought it to mind in his book, The Network Society. IE, if the “Protestant Ethic” was the “spirit of capitalism”, what ethic might be the “spirit of informationalism”?

But the deep question is, of course, what is the nature of the system that a play ethic might legitimate, might make hegemonic and acceptable? Or put it another way: is Castells’ ‘informationalism’ different from Weber’s ‘capitalism’? My beef with Tapscott’s Wikinomics was that it might indeed be a raid on informationalism (or the promise of participatory networks, in Michel Bauwens’ vision) by capitalism. Your point, Julian, is that a subjective mode of playfulness might be exactly what a far-too-fluid, mobile and just-in- time networked capitalism needs from us to function properly (and not the recalcitrance, or commitment to character and coherent life- narrative, that Richard Sennett celebrates in his books).

I would draw you back to your founding insight with the book – gazing at the absorption of your little daughter in play. The politics of a play ethic would be about constructing the same kind of ‘grounds of play’ for adults that we establish for our children – something beyond the Scandinavian model of comprehensive-welfare-supporting- meaningful-work, heading towards a social recognition of the sheer ubiquitous, irrepressible, symbolic productivity of our lives as informational players. This means demands for shorter working week, increased sabbatical support, wellbeing allowances. Your child is a good measure of a play politics in another way – in that informationalism should be about decomposing the morning commute and the work-home divide, and about bringing productivity and nurturance back into proximity again (well, that’s what my freelance life feels like anyway). Jeremy Rifkin gets at the kind of policy militancy required in his European Dream book

“RIFKIN: We simply need to tell our economists coming out of the master of business administration schools how to use fiscal policy to stimulate social capital and the civil society organizations so that they become the place where there’s increasing employment. In that way we balance employment in the market, employment in the public sector for public capital, and then employment in the civil society for social capital. This is the most immune to computers [not a luddite point, he’s been talking about the computerisation of jobs], because in this sector you need humans; it’s about the metaphysics of human engagement with each other – it’s deep play.

“QUESTION: What do you mean by deep play?

“RIFKIN: Deep play is where we create deep bonds of participation to explore our humanity, our relationships to the human principles of life. If you take all of the art, religious, secular, social justice, civic, community, and sports activities, all of those are deep play as they are an end in themselves. The end result is joy, actual revelation. It’s experiencing each other and exploring our humanity. People do it because it gives life meaning. It’s what you remember about life on your deathbed. ”

(Incidentally, how many computer games are driven by such deep-play principles? Second Life maybe? Spore maybe?)

Ok, the long-awaited quote from the article: (there’s much else in the piece which answers these issues):

SL: Somewhat relatedly to this discussion, a question you yourself initiate in the book is the question of audience, of play as display, and I’d like you to expand on that theme a little if you would. Guy Debord made the situationist position clear in arguing that we live in a society of the spectacle, where Marxist alienation is not merely from the objects of production but from the unfolding of reality itself, from which we are largely unattached and look on. Baudrillard took the point further arguing that we don’t just look on at reality because we cannot know what it is independently of our being in it and acting it out – but such a reality is merely a simulacrum of signs, symbols and information that elicits us to participate in particular ways that realise its illusory aspects. We might be alienated, but we aren’t alienated from anything knowable, and we are engaged in reproducing simulacra. So for Debord spectation is important, and for Baudrillard it is more like spectaction – but the point of both is that we perform, that play is play for, that there are audiences even if they are only other players. Perhaps the sort of reality TV that is Big Brother captures this simultaneity. But the question is, if play is performance, how do we arrive at an ethics of display? If play is performative, is it just another form of work that takes us back to a modified work ethic?

PK: I have been focussed in answering this question by a superb essay from the technology critic Alexander Galloway, ‘Warcraft and Utopia’. Let me quote from it:

Adorno argues [in Aesthetic Theory] that play activities are forms of repetition, and on this many agree, but he goes further to assert that “in art, play is from the outset disciplinary [and] art allies itself with unfreedom in the specific character of play.” For Adorno, play has been co-opted by the routine of modern life. “The element of repetition in play is the afterimage of unfree labour, just as sports – the dominant extra-aesthetic form of play – is reminiscent of practical activities and continually fulfils the function of habituating people to the demands of praxis, above all by the reactive transformation of physical displeasure into secondary pleasure, without their noticing that the contraband of praxis has slipped into it.” Thus, in the work of Adorno, play is not a vacation from the pressures of production, but rather the form-of-appearance (‘afterimage’) of that mode itself, with repetition, displeasure, and competitive interaction being but symptoms for deeper social processes. []

I agree with Adorno and Galloway that sports is an example of a culture of display, of spectation, smuggling in a ‘modified work ethic’ – particularly in the spectacle of football, where all the tendencies of the new capitalism (disloyal, hyper-individualised employees; performativity as a self-subverting cult; results-driven, visionary management; the tensions of living out and up to a ‘brand’ culture) are served up as daily narrative entertainment for the viewing millions. It’s almost perfectly ideological – the ‘repetition, displeasure and competitive interaction’ of football as the ideal ‘after- image of unfree labour’. Galloway makes the salient point that, in some multi-user online synthetic worlds, the dues and routines that means you ‘stay in the game’ of World of Warcraft are almost indistinguishable from the kinds of unfree labour that constitutes an ‘offline’ life. As he puts it, “networks are the establishment and play is work”. Galloway’s other brilliant point is that perhaps we don’t need a labour theory of value, but a play theory of value, given how central play is becoming to information capitalism.

Yet I’d resist the notion – which I think constantly recurs in invocation of play in these kinds of arguments – that play has to be confined to a particular combination of elements in its spectrum. This is how Galloway describes play;

“An irreducible, heterogeneous, unquantifiable, absolutely qualitative human endeavour. Conventionally speaking, play is entirely divorced from any kind of productive activity. Play is defined as a negative force that is often a direct threat to production. Play is leisure; play is the inversion of production. Play is an uncapitalizable segment of time. One may return to Friedrich Schiller on the play-drive: the play-drive is a pure moment, and it is a very necessary moment, Schiller would claim, for man’s development, but one that is entirely outside the formal, or the abstract, or all the kinds of human drives that lead to the creation of society as a whole.”

What’s interesting here is how badly Galloway misrepresents Schiller’s play-drive. As Terry Eagleton adroitly points out in The Ideology of the Aesthetic, in the ‘Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man’, Schiller actually interposes the play- drive as a hegemonic term, mediating between the ‘form-drive’ of rationality, and the ‘sense-drive’ of irrationality – historicized by Eagleton as Schiller’s horrified response, in 1794, to the unholy alliance of the philosophies and the mob in the spectacle of the French Revolution. And play as display and performance – the active and shaping ‘aesthetic education’ that would provide for an integrated model of citizenship and social involvement – was very much Schiller’s ideal, what he called the ‘aesthetic state’.

It’s extremely tempting in the age of Big Brother to revive Schiller’s notion: could the concepts of ‘aesthetic’ and ‘state’ ever be brought more appropriately together? And it’s an easy step to identify the hegemonic aspects of Big Brother as a form of performative play. Just as immaterial labour (in the Italian autonomists’ sense) becomes aware of itself as a driving force in the development of society, the spectacle moves into to depoliticize, privatise, and trivialise it. Even more hegemonically, we can see Big Brother as orchestrating movements across the dividing line between passive spectation and active participation with consummate ease – a simulation of the opening-up of the spectacle. Slavoj Žižek (1989) has called this ‘interpassivity’ as opposed to interactivity – a simulation of interaction, guided by existing yet subtle commercial scripts for behaviour.

Is there an irreducibly open, primordial aspect to play, the sheer difference celebrated by Derrida, driven by mammalian adaptive potentiation? Yes. And if so, then that provides the ‘adjacent possible’ within any social system (as the complexity theorists put it) to imagine different forms of display than those which currently canalise the energies of the informational multitude. I’m sure that we’ll participate and spectate in some form of ‘reality TV’ show at some point (Little Brother? Big Sister? Average Activist?) which, as Galloway says, will imagine a life after capitalism “through a utilization of the very essence of capitalism.” I have, like Hardt and Negri, a degree of optimism about the mobility of power-flows across a thoroughly networked planet to think that this expressive possibility will be realised, at some point by some group of activists, and create a different form of display that will ‘pierce through’ the spectacle it participates in.

Best, pk

iDC — mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity ( iDC[at]
List Archive:
iDC Photo Stream:
RSS feed:
iDC Chat on Facebook:
Share relevant URLs on by adding the tag iDCref

Sep 24, 12:07
Trackback URL

7 Responses

  1. Money Matter - News Reviews » Blog Archive » Julian Dibble on play becoming work becoming play:

    […] Julian Dibble has a rich post about the interpenetrating of work and play. There’s so much in it, it’s hard to know where to start. Fortunately, I don’t have to decide because I’m running late for a presentation… [Tags: julian_dibble game play philosophy economics ] var rm_host = “”; var rm_section_id = 124232; rmShowAd(“300×250”); Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

  2. Breaking News ! » Blog Archive » Julian Dibble on play becoming work becoming play:

    […] Julian Dibble has a rich post about the interpenetrating of work and play. There’s so much in it, it’s hard to know where to start. Fortunately, I don’t have to decide because I’m running late for a presentation… [Tags: julian_dibble game play philosophy economics ] var rm_host = “”; var rm_section_id = 124232; rmShowAd(“300×250”); Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

  3. 设计界 » Blog Archive » Links for 2007-09-25 []:

    […] Networked_Performance — [iDC] Online Games, Virtual Economies … Distinction between Play… Online games, virtual economies, and the increasingly elusive distinction between play and production in the digitally networked world. […]

  4. A Web That Works » Blog Archive » Play:

    […]… […]

  5. inkblurt » Dibbell on the game-reality shift:

    […] Online Games, Virtual Economies … Distinction between Play and Production And I’m arguing, finally, that that relationship is one of convergence; that in the strange new world of immateriality toward which the engines of production have long been driving us, we can now at last make out the contours of a more familiar realm of the insubstantial—the realm of games and make-believe. In short, I’m saying that Marx had it almost right: Solidity is not melting into air. Production is melting into play. Share: […]

  6. Rant: Are We Here to Work or Play? -Wrong Question! « I’m

    […] Julian Dibbell’s post to Network Performance (a fascinating blog, by the way), “Online Games, Virtual Economies … Distinction between Play and Production“, he asserts: “Work is play and play is work.” His interesting “theory of […]

  7. Jogos Grátis:

    great stuff, incredible post

Leave a comment


calls + opps performance livestage exhibition installation networked mobile writings participatory locative media augmented/mixed reality event new media video interactive public net art conference virtual intervention distributed second life sound political technology narrative festival tactical lecture art + science conversation social networks social games history surveillance dance music workshop urban mapping collaboration live upgrade! reblog activist wearable immersive public/private data architecture platform body collective aesthetics environment systems city identity film visualization culture telematic wireless web 2.0 site-specific ecology place webcast open source tool software text research intermedia space community audio radio nature hybrid 3-D avatar e-literature audio/visual responsive presence pyschogeography interdisciplinary media object interview physical global/ization ubiquitous theory theater biotechnology relational play code archive bioart generative news DIY robotic light place-specific hacktivism synthetic p2p cinema remix education agency interface language im/material live cinema algorithmic labor copyright simulation mashup animation perception image free/libre software multimedia artificial motion tracking voice convergence streaming reenactment gift economy machinima emergence webcam cyberreality glitch DJ/VJ tv censorship ARG nonlinear tag transdisciplinary touch recycle asynchronous fabbing semantic web hypermedia chance synesthesia biopolitics tangible app social choreography gesture unconference forking 1
1 3-D activist aesthetics agency algorithmic animation app architecture archive ARG art + science artificial asynchronous audio audio/visual augmented/mixed reality avatar bioart biopolitics biotechnology body calls + opps censorship chance cinema city code collaboration collective community conference convergence conversation copyright culture cyberreality dance data distributed DIY DJ/VJ e-literature ecology education emergence environment event exhibition fabbing festival film forking free/libre software games generative gesture gift economy glitch global/ization hacktivism history hybrid hypermedia identity im/material image immersive installation interactive interdisciplinary interface intermedia intervention interview labor language lecture light live live cinema livestage locative media machinima mapping mashup media mobile motion tracking multimedia music narrative nature net art networked new media news nonlinear object open source p2p participatory perception performance physical place place-specific platform play political presence public public/private pyschogeography radio reblog recycle reenactment relational remix research responsive robotic second life semantic web simulation site-specific social social choreography social networks software sound space streaming surveillance synesthesia synthetic systems tactical tag tangible technology telematic text theater theory tool touch transdisciplinary tv ubiquitous unconference upgrade! urban video virtual visualization voice wearable web 2.0 webcam webcast wireless workshop writings



Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul

What is this?

Networked Performance (N_P) is a research blog that focuses on emerging network-enabled practice.

RSS feeds

N_P offers several RSS feeds, either for specific tags or for all the posts. Click the top left RSS icon that appears on each page for its respective feed. What is an RSS feed?



New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
New American Radio
Upgrade! Boston
Massachusetts Cultural Council
New York State Council on the Arts, a State agency
Thinking Blogger Award

Turbulence Works

These are some of the latest works commissioned by's net art commission program.
[ openspace ] wilderness [] A More Subtle Perplex A Temporary Memorial Project for Jobbers' Canyon Built with ConAgra Products A Travel Guide A.B.S.M.L. Ars Virtua Artist-in-Residence (AVAIR) (2007) Awkward_NYC besides, Bonding Energy Bronx Rhymes Cell Tagging Channel TWo: NY Condition:Used Constellation Over Playas Data Diaries Domain of Mount GreylockVideo Portal Eclipse Empire State Endgame: A Cold War Love Story Flight Lines From the Valley of the Deer FUJI spaces and other places Global Direct Google Variations Gothamberg Grafik Dynamo Grow Old Handheld Histories as Hyper-Monuments html_butoh I am unable to tell you I'm Not Stalking You; I'm Socializing iLib Shakespeare (the perturbed sonnet project) INTERP Invisible Influenced iPak - 10,000 songs, 10,000 images, 10,000 abuses iSkyTV Journal of Journal Performance Studies Killbox L-Carrier Les Belles Infidles look art Lumens My Beating Blog MYPOCKET No Time Machine Nothing Happens: a performance in three acts Nothing You Have Done Deserves Such Praise Oil Standard Panemoticon Peripheral n2: KEYBOARD Playing Duchamp Plazaville Psychographics: Consumer Survey Recollecting Adams School of Perpetual Training Searching for Michelle/SFM Self-Portrait Shadow Play: Tales of Urbanization of China ShiftSpace Commissions Program Social Relay Mail Space Video Spectral Quartet Superfund365, A Site-A-Day text_ocean The Xanadu Hijack This and that thought. Touching Gravity 2/Tilt Tumbarumba Tweet 4 Action Urban Attractors and Private Distractors We Ping Good Things To Life Wikireuse Without A Trace WoodEar Word Market You Don't Know Me
More commissions