• Why does play have such a bad wrap with grown ups?

• Why an opposition between work and play?

• Do we aspire to enjoy *our* work?

• Do we take ourselves too seriously?

So I'm going to start by saying that I have always struggled with the idea that work is a separate compartmentalised part of life and that work is not fun. I have not always had the most exciting jobs in the world (a summer at Domino's Pizza as a student being the lowest point) but I have always found something to enjoy in them so the idea that work could be seen as the opposite of play by anyone feels quite alien to me making this a really fascinating week.

Kane (2005 [1]) was a great paper to start with as it was, in it's format and outlook, hugely playful in exploring play and theories of play. Kane talks about two key rhetorics of play and humanity: a modern vision build around ideas of human freedom as embodied by an ideal of imagination, passion and confidence (I think Brown (2008 [8]) is a really interesting example of this rhetoric); and an ancient vision which “sees players as determined by forces largely beyond their control” which, to me, also suggests a form of play more allied with social, religious and superstitious practice (so not always that ancient). These are not mutually exclusive rhetorics and most actual experiences of play can't be neatly pigeon holed into either category and nor can work be separated neatly off to the side. Thus I can't agree more with Kane's comment that “Once properly investigated, there's no going back to a simple definition of play”.

Kane goes on to examine a range of theories of play. “Play as progress”, which focuses on play as a/the core early development process. In evoking this Kane refers back to to the Enlightenment, to Rousseau's Emile (1759) and to the invention of taking “childhood” seriously as a phenomenon in the early industrialised west. However whilst Kane talks about the role of play – the idea of play as an opposite force to work in Victorian society - in the creation of the notion of childhood I think that he rather skips over the role of religion (after all the ultimate Christian art works – unlike religious icons in many other religions – frequently centre on the idea of Jesus as a perfect playful child – precocious but poised), as well as the role of myth and the idea of play that pre-existed in those particular creation myths. Although there are certainly art works that testify to the extent that privileged children were presented as mini adults there are also childrens toys – rattles in particular – that pre-date Victorian culture and indicate play and playfulness as important to raising children long before the “seriousness” of childhood was established. For me what is gained in accepting and embracing childhood in Victorian society – which, after all, saw a huge move from rural to city living conditions and living expectations leading to shocking brutalisation of children (often unwanted) in grim factory settings – is also the simplification and mythification of childhood as a protective innocent space. Playfulness is one side of this but saccharine behavioural and physical expectations build up (and thus a whole wave of literature about societies underdog unwanted children emerges) and the idea of taking children seriously – other than as innocent spiritual barometers to be romanticised – all but disappears. Play has not been discovered but it has, in fact, been de-clawed. Greek myth might have youthful gods making mistakes and playful hi-jinks but Victorian play myths see creativity and play as wonderful traits only in the young and innocent. And I think it is these ideas of the ideal child able to play so long as innocence is retained (and those of the ilk of Maria Montessori – also quoted in Kane) that leads to the modern juxtaposing of work and play – and the relative barriers to inducing adult play - to perhaps even greater extent than the industrialised structured play identified by Kane. Those industrial ideas of work-life balance (for this is what they are – early experiments in identifying work as so unpleasant that play is required as an offsetting force.

The study of mental health and medicalisation culture also emerges around the same time as these new ideas of play and I don't think that it is any co-incidence that many psychologists and psychiatrists use playful methods of diagnosis and treatment to encourage patients/subjects to voice ideas, memories, fantasies (by the time Freud appears a repressed populace is ready to see most of the world in terms of sex and death) through a safe prism of innocent child like wonder. But that is to presume that children are innocent and I think any hour spent with an 8 year old will reveal that children are actually far more complex and aware of the world and whilst nieve are unlikely to be wholly innocent. It is a rare western child that will reach secondary school without exposure to swearing, urban legends of horrible and/or sexual things, bullying, peer and parent pressures, loss and sadness, bad and/or immoral behaviours etc. Indeed I think the Victorian's play legacy here actually includes the commercialisation of emotion and nostalgia and the establishment of unreal ideas based on a past that never was.

As Kane moves on to Play as Imagination and the work of the surrealists I cannot help but wonder why he does not pick up on the role of play in oppressive scenarios. The surrealist movement emerged out of complex, often highly repressive, political times where statements of narrative art could be seen and punished as criticism but surrealism provided an under-the-radar way for subversive content to be communicated, shared or simply enjoyed. Surrealism has remained a popular form of artwork precisely because the outrage it often sparks is in fact a decoy that raises attention for the free and critical comment often embodied in the work. The work of Jake & Dinos Chapman, for instance, capitalise on shock and awe to make surreal nightmares that critique the grotty realities of war, or, most notoriously, mock public obsession with the sexualisation of children and the fetishisation of their innocence. These are artworks whose warnings and notoriety are almost as powerful as the work itself. They are surreal and playful but without the arousal of shock and outrage the appeal of these critical works would be restricted to those already well aware of the dark horrifying works of Goya, El Greco and, indeed, Salvidor Dali that are all referenced in the Chapman's work. Play is used here as a front for dual subversion – a critique of the very audience that will be appalled into viewing the works and a very traditional nod to the long western history of art that focuses on the dark underbelly of human desires, particularly humanity's lust and violence.

The use of playfulness through surrealism in advertising meanwhile is both a nod to art which has moved from subversive cult to mainstream ubiquitousness and an efficient means of capturing attention. A straightforward advertising message is rarely the most effective, in part because the cost of advertising space is prohibitive and, in part, because any advertising must differentiate it's product from all the compeitors. Surrealism is about adopting a series of flexible codes that must be cracked – this in itself constitutes not only playfulness but also a small subconcious game. The famous Silk Cut ads of the 80s (some are included here) were instantly recognisable, instantly popular not because of the product (cigarettes) but because they were visual games – huge advertising hoardings filled with abstracted images in which one must identify the brand colour (purple), some sort of sharp edge (often scissors which come loaded with their own symbolic meanings) and, of course, silk in some form. This game draws attention and attentive eyeballs are the key goal of any advertiser. It also – as with the original surrealists – neatly side stepped increasing restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes. But surrealism and abstraction only work when the game is recognisable. If you know you are playing Where's Wally? It can be fun. If you just see just part of an image with no indication of the goal you will certainly not give the ad significant repeat attention. Attention has currently moved to playful but less abstracted viral ads – or viral style ads – where product labels are clearly in view, prices are stated etc. Surrealism wasn't purely a mid 1990s trend but that period did seem to mark a peak of abstracted surreal ads perhaps because advertising was a very lucrative business at the time and the number of media channels was expanding but only in usefully limited directions (perhaps also the advertising executives at this time had been raised on the drug and hypnagogia induced surreal art and LP sleeve work of the 1960s and '70s) . In a worldwide online marketplace it is harder to build knowledge of a brand enough to build a familiar game between advertising product and consumer and thus more transparent methods of communication – particularly in print ads - are favoured over surreal and playful campaign games.

Kane, in talking of Play as Selfhood, raises issues for me around the idea of “free play” since this idea of playfulness also relies on some distintly non free, non casual, non playful preconditions. Core drivers that enabled hippies to tune in and drop out include the movement's grounding in the secure middles classes (one can only drop out when one has the resources to opt out); the invention of the birth control pill substantially contributed to the “free love” movement (later to also lose it's free veneer with the rising rates in sexual diseases). So as long as you had medical insurance, a structured calendar of birth control pill consumption, and enough money to engage you could take part in “free play” of a sort.

However as Kane develops his theory of play I find his idea that society is both defined by work and is thus inherently unplayful to be rather difficult. This is not what I see in my own experience of the world. My sector – effectively educational technology – is an intensely creative and playful space and, as universities look to boost commercialisation of ideas developed in their bounds, the spaces to play and experiment are increasing exponentially (e.g. University of Edinburgh's Informatics Ventures initiative). At the same time BarCamps, unconferences, etc. all contribute to a much more playful culture and the rise in participative playful hobbies – geocaching, knitting groups, Maker Faires, World of Warcraft, the rise of burlesque, community participation in Wikipedia (motivation for which is very nicely described in Pink (2009 [7]) – all help highlight playful natures whilst stories of individuals leaving jobs they don't like to become ebay sellers, Second Life sellers, etc. also hint at the bridging between work and play that is possible in an affluent (even in these straightened times) and well educated society. Indeed our videos for this week both highlighted the impotance in modern society of a streak of subversive play that cuts through the normality of a day - though both Piano Stairs [5] and Pacman in the Library [6] could, perhaps, be seen to highlight a lack of playfulness in normal routine they certainly reveal a huge reciptiveness to play. That they could be made possible also shows the humour and space already allowed for playfulness in work and study spaces. 

There is also a bizarre paradox at work in the idea of respect and play. Although we respect academic and intellectual achievement we also often quantify success and standing in the world in terms of money and power. Thus is it peculiar to note that the greatest thinkers, intellectuals, academics, politicians, inventors, etc. are actually not the highest paid or most influential people in the world. Instead it is the film stars, the sports stars, the television personalities, and even the people famous for being famous. We may say that we do not respect play but actually our society puts those who play (whether through acting, games, or purely fun intuitive on-camera pursuits) for a living. If that is not an indicator that play is respected very highly indeed I don't know what is. But the fact that we ourselves prefer to maintain an idea that seriousness, that “work” must not be fun but must be respected indicates a tremendously interesting sociological construct of the notion of proper and improper ways to use time. And yet, as highlighted by Pink (2009 [7]) play can be a more productive and motivating form of activity when it is not classified as a thing that must be done, as something that is “work”, as something with intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivators.

The Sutton-Smith (1997 [2]) paper on play and ambiguity brought me back to thoughts of Gee (2003[9]) and his “semiotic domains” since both authors talk about the fluidity of meaning and the relationship of meaning to context, domain and playfulness. Although I very much liked the insight of the Sutton-Smith paper – particularly the depth of ambiguity that can be explored in any notion of play - I found that it was most useful for opening up my mind and triggering my own further thoughts on what constitutes play. However both Sutton-Smith and Callois (2001 [3]) slightly exasperated me with their blend of quite fascinating discussion of play – and the difficulties of play being open, playful, full of diverse and often difficult to grasp meaning– since it was accompanied by what felt, to me, to be oddly arcane attempts to classify this amorphousness into impossibly limited categories. That seems to me to help with the semantics of discussing play but not the matter of understanding play any more deeply – it is the short discussion and not the specific terms and theories being forwarded that offered most in terms of addressing how play can be understood and usefully harnessed for learning. Callois's instinctive paidia and more chewy ludus do seem robustly defined and informative but it is hard not to question whether cognitively the need to solve complex puzzles for their own fun (ludus) is, in fact, rewarding only because it is as much an instinctive, child-like force as making a loud noise in a quiet building (paidia). I think it would certainly be interesting to know how the definitions of play – from all of the readings we have been looking at – map to the function of the brain since inherent in Callois's opposing play types is the idea that pleasure is derived and enjoyed in different ways depending on the type of play and I do not know if that is cognitively accurate. Sutton-Smith's rhetorics of play overlap and combine - though this is self-conciously the case with Sutton-Smith making reference to Pepper (1961) and the usefulness of arbitrary distinctions in philosophical scholarly discourse.

I also unsure how the role of external factors – such as the process of being observed - can be properly accounted for in these categories. One of the continued themes of discussion board activity this week revolved around the self-consciousness of play in adults and the different qualities of play (even in the least self-conscious people) that occur alone, in social situations, and with audiences of any type. There are specific forms of of play around audiences but I think, putting on my former scientist hat, that if you are to identify categories, you must also be able to define the variables, the margins of error for those categories.

However as a final word I have to say that, whilst I deplored the quality of writing in Juul (2001 [4]) I was left with a great sense of curiosity to explore Sutton-Smith's 1959 work Kissing games of adolescents in Ohio. I do wonder if Juul's claim that the study of play is repeatedly lost is more a matter of specifically psychological discussion of the topic since I am aware that there is a long standing social anthropology interest in play and social play in particular. At this point in the course I am starting to wonder how many disciplines can be constructively combined to form a theory of play since it seems clear that psychology, history (and specifically history of science if the work on intrinsic motivation is to be recognised), social anthropology but also cognitive science – and that is just for a start – must all be combined to form any sort of “universal” theory of play. I think this is one of the reasons that I fear the use of categories that create a layer of opacity between disciplines and discourage playful sharing of ideas.

To play and to consider how we play in all aspects of daily life has been a rewarding week for me and is certainly useful going forward. Sutton-Smith's comments on the use of play as a form of defining identity is particularly interesting to bear in mind as we move into educational games and thus the use of avatars, social play and other more performative and more constructed forms of play and selfhood.

References

• [1] Kane, P. (2005) Chapter 2, 'A General Theory of Play'. In The Play Ethic : a Manifesto for a Different Way of Living. London, Pan. p35-64

• [2] Sutton-Smith, B. (1997) Chapter 1, 'Play and Ambiguity'. In The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 

• [3] Caillois, R. (2001) Chapter 2, 'The Classification of Games'. In Man, Play and Games. Illinois: University of illinois Press.

• [4] Juul, J. (2001) The repeatedly lost art of studying games; Review of Elliott M. Avedon & Brian Sutton-Smith (ed.): The Study of Games. Game Studies 1:1 (July 2001).

• [5] "Piano on the stairs" video

• [6] "Pacman in the library" video

• [7] Pink, Dan (2009) Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation. TEDGlobal. Accessed 14^th February 2010. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

• [8] Brown, Tim (2008) Tim Brown on Creativity and Play. Serious Play 2008. Accessed 14^th February 2010. http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.

• [9] Gee, J. P. (2003). Chapter 2, 'Semiotic Domains: Is playing video games a "waste of time"?'In What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.