plork.fun

What is plork?

I have now written 56,000-ish words about plork. That’s 6000 words over my word limit, and I’ve still got entire sections to go in. Still, this is part of my process, and forms the bulk of what I’m referring to as my ‘first trash draft’, which will get beaten into shape over the next short while. One of the key things though has been having to reconsider this notion of plork, pulling it apart, analysing it and attempting to understand - and, importantly, explain - what it is I’m on about here.

Plork was first conceptualised by artist and educator Corita and co-author Jan Steward in their book Learning by Heart: Teachings to free the creative spirit (2008, originally published in 1992) and was grounded in the argument that neither play nor work are words which fully encompass the creative act of making. Based on Corita’s artistic and teaching philosophies, plork encompassed the idea that “play is a way of working, and work a way of playing” (ibid. p.156). Viewing the two as separate (as we are programmed to do, particularly in adulthood), does not serve creative practice; instead, “We need a third word - one which combines the two concepts and allows us to recognise them together as one responsible act necessary for human advancement” (ibid. p.159). Plork is not gamifying work; it is a separate state, an approach to creativity that encompasses “the abstract and the concrete, the joy and the labour” (ibid.). It is playing productively; making-playing, with the specific goal of creative output.

Whilst they presents the idea of combining work and play as part of a cognitive process (i.e. a way of thinking about making), what it does not do is offer any suggestions as to how that might be done; their definition of plork does not so much define it but describe it. There’s nothing wrong with this - in fact, Bernard De Koven argued that perhaps thats how we should consider playfulness (De Koven, 2017). But in order to make plork practicable for contemporary animators and beyond - one of the key goals of the research - I felt I needed a more concrete definition; I needed to break down plork’s constituents parts - play and work - alongside some connected ideas such as playfulness and creativity, and dig into what they actually meant. That’s a whole chapter in my PhD right now, but summarising, I concluded the following:

Through this, I was able to get a much better grip on what plork might actually be: not so much the process of making things playfully, but of actively, consciously choosing playfulness as part of a creative methodology. As such, I present a my current contemporary definition of plork:

The cultivation of, and conscious engagement in, a playful attitude in service of the production of creative outputs.

In my research, I posit this is achieved through a process of reflection, rule-setting and renewed creative practice, with a specific consideration of playfulness: we make, we reflect on our playfulness in our making, we write constraints or reminders to help us better engage with playfulness, and we make again. Through this, we can become more aware of our own playfulness, and find simple ways to overcome barriers that stop us being as playful as we can be. Plork is a process of being playful with purpose. It is the notion that playfulness precedes creativity; playfulness is, to some extent at least, a choice; and that this choice is better facilitated by a understanding (through reflection) our selves, our personal contexts, and our processes. Whilst this does somewhat step away from Corita and Steward’s original conceptualisation. However, in doing so, I believe it provides more scope to systematically engage with plork as a process.

Really, plork is about stopping considering playfulness as a by-product of being creative, and instead, actively, consciously cultivating it and using that to build a playful foundation on which our learning and practices are based (Nørgård et al, 2017). Presenting this idea at conferences has highlighted two things in particular to me: first, that very few people have heard of the notion of plork at all; second, that participants want to learn more about their own playfulness. Every time I present this in a workshop format, participant feedback almost always includes almost relief at being given some space and tools to consider their own playfulness and how to engage in it more fully going forward. Plorkshops (I know, but I love it) give adults ‘permission’ to think about their own playfulness (Walsh, 2019). The fact that adults in particular are craving this opportunity, but almost entirely have not heard of the concept of plork, demonstrates the gap I believe my research is filling: bringing plork to the fore, and in doing so, helping artists, educators and, frankly, anyone more consciously choose playfulness.

These ideas and definitions are, of course, in flux, and the research continues. However, the closer I get to the end of my PhD, the more convinced I am that reconstructing plork in a practical, sustainable way presents massive opportunities to impact contemporary arts practice and pedagogy - and beyond.

References

FARBER, M. 2014. Why Serious Games Are Not Chocolate-Covered Broccoli. Edutopia [Online]. Available from: https://www.edutopia.org/blog/serious-games-not-chocolate-broccoli-matthew-farber [Accessed 19-11-2024 2024].

DE KOVEN, B. L. 2017. Defining Playfulness Or Not. Psychology Today [Online]. Available from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/having-fun/201708/defining-playfulness [Accessed 31-01-2022 2022].

DEWEY, J. 1910. How we think, Boston,, D.C. Heath & Co.

KENT, C. & STEWARD, J. 2008. Learning by heart, New York, Bantam Books.

NØRGÅRD, R. T., TOFT-NIELSEN, C. & WHITTON, N. 2017. Playful learning in higher education: developing a signature pedagogy. International Journal of Play, 6, 272-282.