While reading the article based on Huizinga's Homo Ludens I kept seeing the theme of playfulness vs. seriousness pop up. It caught my attention not because of the debate that is explained in the writing but because of its characteristics. It became apparent to me that this theme is on that can be debated to an extensive degree. I would like to share a little about what I see this meaning for us through the context in which it's being used.
When I think of playfulness I think of a puppy dog or of a baby not knowing what it's doing but still smiling. I also think of playfulness as a primitive characteristic to humans. On the other side of the spectrum there is seriousness, this I attach to images of exams or elections. The way that these contrast each other is not at all surprising, what was surprising was the way in play that they can change so radically. A game starts with play, not serious but if it isn't serious how can we attach meaning to it? I'd like to think that although it is a game that there is some type of meaning behind what we are doing. In the article it stated that although meaningful, play is "essentially not a serious activity" and that a "function centered theory fails to explain why people play- meaning that we do not need play to live but that it is something we have anyway. How is it possible to extract actual meaning from something we cannot quantify or justify its being?
I guess what I am really trying to say that if play isn't serious then how can it be meaningful? I understand that things can still mean something without having a serious note attached but when you analyze play to its roots doesn't seriousness bring about meaning? So without it is it meaningful? In conclusion I think that if we look to find meaning in something then there must be seriousness attached? Also is a serious game designer actually a game designer or is he/she a teacher?
I was having trouble digesting the rather subjective and objective overlap in this article as well. Essentially, play can be explained functionally in the sciences, but its something rightfully measured in a qualitative state. Rodriguez said on the first page, "To describe play is to describe its meaningfulness," and I suppose that in itself shows that there is not an element of 'seriousness' needed to ascribe meaning to play. Meaning itself does not have to be measured by statistics, studied in a lab, or tested against a theory to exist. Meaning, like truth, reveals itself in such a way that is more natural and intimate than any study of the sciences (referencing Heidegger here).
ReplyDeleteAlso, a 'serious' game designer is still a game designer by occupation. They just create what can be used for learning in the same way a regular game designer goes about his/her job, only difference being a different customer base (those seeking the educational experience through games).