PLAY
Imagine a situation, perhaps a class or gallery event. Participants are sat down at tables with various creative tools. Organizers hand out a piece of paper. The paper says: “This paper is pure free space. You can do whatever you want here. You are free.” Lower down on the page, in parenthesis, the organizers felt it important to add a little encouragement: “(Seriously, whatever, don’t worry about it, just do whatever you want to do. It’s all cool. This is a safe space. Draw, write, tear it up, whatever. No judgement. Just whatever you want.)” Maybe even another at the bottom.
“BUT REALLY, NO JUDGEMENT!” The question is: why the necessity for such encouragement?
Well, for some, such a request might be be exciting, liberating, fun. Artists, leaders, creativity junkies. People who have a talent for this sort of thing (and, more than likely, have already been trained on how to deal with such prompts). But for others, this opportunity brings terror: The terror of being asked to participate. To play. It is the terror of freedom. It is the terror of expression. And it is warranted.
If a person is asked to “simply” do what they want to do, what are they being asked really? They are being asked to exhibit what they will do with freedom. No small request. As what one would do with freedom is a reflection upon the person’s character. The freer the terms, the more inference about the character of the person being free can be made.
The situation described above is what I would call “open play”: one of play’s central characteristics being an ability to follow one’s desires. “Open play” is a simple invitation to begin to play. “Do whatever you want.” With the freedom of “open play” comes the other edge of the sword: a kind of exposure– the possibility, and subsequent fear, that one’s actions will betray some aspect of themselves they would rather keep unexposed.
Consider the technique of free-association, a prompt where a participant (or patient in many cases) is asked to respond to a word with the first word they think of. Again, a complete open-ended situation is created. “Seriously, whatever you think of!” This technique, famously, is used by psychoanalysts as a shortcut to discovering the latent and unconscious desires of the patient.
GAMES
Games come from another end of the freedom spectrum. They are structured experiences. They are littered with constriction. They present a closed language in which every element’s purpose and use is set.
At the outset of a card game of Hearts, it is required for everyone to be told what in the deck has meaning– suits, card number– what are valid and invalid choices– play inside the suit until out, only then can play another suit– and how the meanings will be used to determine who wins. The player is given what they can do, what it will mean, and what judgement will be made upon their choices. In this and most card games, the system is closed and crystalline. In every game though, there must also be some room for play, some freedom. Otherwise, the game becomes an automata and plays itself.
The first form of play that squeezes in comes the form of strategizing and decision making. This creates the fun of the game. In comparison to “open play”, the game has little chance of betraying the hidden nature of the player, but more importantly, seems to the player to have little chance of betraying aspects of themselves. The game creates a sphere of comfort.
Without this semblance, the game loses it’s fun and light aspects. It takes on a certain gravity, the kind of terror seen above– the terror of “open play”.
Games can exhibit a good number of ways to play, verging on “open play”. Think of Pictionary. Charades. Mafia. These are games require play that verges on (and even spills into) the category of “open play” – a player gets to do “anything they want” to uncover the hidden word or the mystery player. But the game shrouds the openness of the play with its stringent system of rules. Many players of these games, when approached with more upfront scenarios of play–like the one beginning this essay– balk. They exhibit the type of fear described above.
Games present safe forms of “open play”. Those who do not consider themselves creative still play games.
Through a kind of magic seduction, games coax open play out of those otherwise uncomfortable with it.
But it is clear that games have their limitations. The game must be followed. The game creates its own options. Used properly. At the crux of the problem is maximizing play while mitigating the base terror of freedom.
THE PLAYGROUND AND GROUNDS FOR PLAY
The playground is an edifice combining game and play but rising above both. It suggests forms of play, assists and bolsters certain forms of play, but also excites the mind towards inventing new play, makes conceiving of new ways of play easier. They are tools that assist, sway, suggest options, but simply as they stand. Because the playground anticipates any attempts to destroy it. It is constructed to withstand use, abuse, and all uses contrary to its built-in intentions, whether constructive or destructive. In the best situations, destructive to constructive.
The slide certainly suggests its function. The swings are far more enjoyable if used in a particular way. And the playground must be fun to participants who follow its architectural intentions; using everything properly should result in complete experiences that are interesting in and of themselves. Following the rules still is fun.
How is it possible that rules are replaced by intentions? Well, a playground simply needs to be built with strong materials. itself of materials of strength. Thus is the beauty of objects, and truly, the wonder of locations. I cannot wax poetic enough about this fact.
The playground lends itself to the concrete, and creating a conceptual or theoretical construct analog– a “playground” event or “playground” artwork– presents a different kind of problem. But it can still follow some of the basic principles:
A conceptual playground must excite the mind, make it see possibilities of play, whilst calming the terror of absolute freedom. It can accommodate rules and intentions, and it must anticipate attempts at its destruction. A participant plays a game, plays with freedom, and plays on a playground.
1: Clearly, not all of the ideas presented in this essay are the author’s. It is very possible all of this has been discussed and the conclusions here already drawn or well-refuted or ingeniously expanded upon. The author, lying to himself, would say he based the thoughts here on his own observation and rumination, but the bounds and seams of observation and rumination are created through influences, which he must have used in this composition, consciously and unconsciously. . Please contact the author with any instances of plagiarism at chrisscottcole@gmail.com, Mostly, he would just like to read said intellectual property to end his gross ignorance on the subject.