The relationship between play and reality is a complicated one; even more complicated as we lack a proper definition of play. Bateson (1956) points out that play is often defined in opposition of something, like, for example, “seriousness” or “work”. This opposition is generally inefficient (play can be extremely serious and professional players do exist), but it tells us something about the semantic position of play. Work is perceived as a “consistent” activity, something connected to “everyday life” and, thus, to reality. The same can be said for seriousness. Playfulness, on the other hand, is perceived as light and elusive, too ethereal to “feel real”. Caillois (1967) takes this sensation into account in his attempt to describe the structure of play. According to him, one of the principal characteristics of play is to be “make-believe: accompanied by a special awareness of a second reality, or of a free unreality, as against real life” (Caillois 1967, translation by Salen & Zimmerman 2006, 128). Although very short, this definition outlines three key concepts of the status of play and its relationship with reality, which are: – being unreal; – creating a second reality: - being make-believe. In this paper, then, we will dedicate a section to each of these key concepts and investigate them in depth, in order to answer the question: “Is play real?”
Realities of Play: a semiotic analysis of the province of meaning of play
THIBAULT, MATTIA
2016-01-01
Abstract
The relationship between play and reality is a complicated one; even more complicated as we lack a proper definition of play. Bateson (1956) points out that play is often defined in opposition of something, like, for example, “seriousness” or “work”. This opposition is generally inefficient (play can be extremely serious and professional players do exist), but it tells us something about the semantic position of play. Work is perceived as a “consistent” activity, something connected to “everyday life” and, thus, to reality. The same can be said for seriousness. Playfulness, on the other hand, is perceived as light and elusive, too ethereal to “feel real”. Caillois (1967) takes this sensation into account in his attempt to describe the structure of play. According to him, one of the principal characteristics of play is to be “make-believe: accompanied by a special awareness of a second reality, or of a free unreality, as against real life” (Caillois 1967, translation by Salen & Zimmerman 2006, 128). Although very short, this definition outlines three key concepts of the status of play and its relationship with reality, which are: – being unreal; – creating a second reality: - being make-believe. In this paper, then, we will dedicate a section to each of these key concepts and investigate them in depth, in order to answer the question: “Is play real?”
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
