games and art: meaning
Susan R Murray
games and art. Now I'm trying to think of meaningful games.
meaningful full is a bad word because it could mean anything
... but you might consider catching the flowers at a wedding
meaningful while a random game of tic tac toe might not be
(as) meaningful.
But even in that case the meaning is dependent on the utility
for the players which may be symbolic but is in each case real
... I wonder if the structure of a game could contain a
meaning ...
The reason I want to think of a whole bunch of meaningful games
because I find that meaning is something that art is ought to
have but games don't really have to have. I think it's why video
games are so pointless. "Yes, it was challenging," I say....
"but what does it mean?!? Even a stupid movie like "THE DEEP BLUE
SEA" (under no circumstance go see this: it is terrible) has more
meaning that shooting these litte planes!"
Susan
Ed Darrin
as for your primary message, i think it's much more interesting than the
first.
in what i know about games and art, i'm not sure if you want to define
meaning the way you have, because in doing so, you limit your scope. by your
definition, a game of chess has more meaning than a game of poker has more
meaning than playing pac-man, but this is mostly within context of the game
itself. if you look at a bigger picture, these games all have the same
amount of meaning, which is entertainment, competition, etc. the whole idea
of games is to do something dissimilar to everyday routine in order to get
away from the humdrum of life. no game exists for any other reason, although
some may take advantage of this reason (i.e., someone invents a new video
game to make money, but it is the entertainment value of the game that
drives the profit).
as for art, some would say that art doesn't need meaning, and others would
say that it shouldn't have meaning at all (these would be dadaists and the
like).
i think the best example here is music. other forms of art, like painting,
sculpture, etc, are often expected to represent something or other--even
when abstract. but we seem to be resigned to the fact that music is just
music in and of itself. it is abstract, and nothing more. in fact, music
that does represent something else (cartoon music comes to mind) comes
across as weird.
however, these ideas of the meaning of art are still confined to the
artworks themselves. if you ask for the meaning of art itself, most artists
will say it comes from either a need to create (which i would say is part of
human nature), or that art exists without us and we only access it.
i probably don't make any sense, or if i do, i'm not addressing the question
the way you want me to. but maybe this will help somehow.
ed.
Susan R Murray wrote in message ...
Intermodal
Ed Darrin wrote:
> i wasn't planning on going to deep blue sea, but thanks for the advice.
>
> as for your primary message, i think it's much more interesting than the
> first.
>
> in what i know about games and art, i'm not sure if you want to define
> meaning the way you have, because in doing so, you limit your scope. by your
> definition, a game of chess has more meaning than a game of poker has more
> meaning than playing pac-man, but this is mostly within context of the game
> itself. if you look at a bigger picture, these games all have the same
> amount of meaning, which is entertainment, competition, etc. the whole idea
> of games is to do something dissimilar to everyday routine in order to get
> away from the humdrum of life. no game exists for any other reason, although
> some may take advantage of this reason (i.e., someone invents a new video
> game to make money, but it is the entertainment value of the game that
> drives the profit).
>
My view on this is slightly different. I think that art and games(as broad
categories of human activity) have a great deal of meaning(as broad categories)
Art and Games provide a very important outlet in human culture. They allow an
individual to test rules and boundaries, as well as learn to play roles in a
non-threating environment. Games provide an alternate context to play out and
practice human situations without real world consequences. The arts allow a
person to play with ideas and contexts without(theoretically) invoking the wrath
of dominant cultural mores.
The most important thing to remember about games and art is that they create a
non real world context for human activities. A game of chess is a metaphor for
violence(strategic warfare,) but the context of the game removes the violence.
You can practice chess over and over, and nothing really happens, you cannot
repeat large scale physical combat with out serious consequences. The same can
be said for art, just replace violence with experimenting with ideas.
art and games put real situations into a play context. If you physically attack
me, there will be a problem, but if you change the context to "we are just
playing," it diffuses the situation. I feel that I might not be getting across
what I am thinking, Paul Bonhammen wrote a book called "Understanding Culture"
that looks into the role of play in culture, he is brings this concept across
far more clearly than I am at the moment. In any event, I think you have to
approach these things from a broader perspective.
> as for art, some would say that art doesn't need meaning, and others would
> say that it shouldn't have meaning at all (these would be dadaists and the
> like).
>
> i think the best example here is music. other forms of art, like painting,
> sculpture, etc, are often expected to represent something or other--even
> when abstract. but we seem to be resigned to the fact that music is just
> music in and of itself. it is abstract, and nothing more. in fact, music
> that does represent something else (cartoon music comes to mind) comes
> across as weird.
>
> however, these ideas of the meaning of art are still confined to the
> artworks themselves. if you ask for the meaning of art itself, most artists
> will say it comes from either a need to create (which i would say is part of
> human nature), or that art exists without us and we only access it.
>
once again, I think the answer lies in having a broader perspective. I think the
question that really needs to be asked is not "what do these _particular_ art
pieces mean?" but rather "what is the function of art within human culture?" I
believe that art is a "safe" area for people to explore and play with ideas, in
exactly the same way that games allow humans a "safe" area to play out
real,world situations.
> i probably don't make any sense, or if i do, i'm not addressing the question
> the way you want me to. but maybe this will help somehow.
> ed.
>
> Susan R Murray wrote in message ...
> >I've been refining this idea about the relationship between
> >games and art. Now I'm trying to think of meaningful games.
> >meaningful full is a bad word because it could mean anything
> >... but you might consider catching the flowers at a wedding
> >meaningful while a random game of tic tac toe might not be
> >(as) meaningful.
you are missing the boat on this big time (no offense)
you are also going to have to put a strict definition on what exactly
constitutes "meaning"
> >
> >But even in that case the meaning is dependent on the utility
> >for the players which may be symbolic but is in each case real
> >... I wonder if the structure of a game could contain a
> >meaning ...
Game structures absolutely contain meaning. Contrast Poker vs. Baseball, the
concepts taught in these games are vastly different. Poker stress individuality,
playing mental games with people, Poker has as much to do with your ability to
fool people as it does the cards you are dealt. Poker is a very psychological
game. Baseball on the other hand, teaches very different lessons. The set rules
are very strict, and a players actions are limited by his position. Baseball
teaches that co-operation and playing by the rules.
once again, you have to approach this with a larger perspective. you have to ask
"what is the function of a game?" and then from there you have to ask "what is
this game representing, what sections of human behavior does this represent?"
> >
> >The reason I want to think of a whole bunch of meaningful games
> >because I find that meaning is something that art is ought to
> >have but games don't really have to have.
what exactly are you trying to express with the word "meaningful"? look beyond
specific games, or specific art pieces, and approach them as large sections of
human behavior. what do games represent to us? what does art represent across
human culture(IOW all human culture, not just our western, english speaking
world view)?
> I think it's why video
> >games are so pointless. "Yes, it was challenging," I say....
> >"but what does it mean?!?
aside from the fact that even the most pointless video game is an exercise in
manipulating information, video games allow us to do dangerous things in a
"safe" play context. I wouldn't dare Pod Race in real life, but I liked the
video game :) They are just an extension of conventional game, they put
dangerous situations into a safe mental framework.
> Even a stupid movie like "THE DEEP BLUE
> >SEA" (under no circumstance go see this: it is terrible) has more
> >meaning that shooting these litte planes!"
> >
> > Susan
hollywood films should be taxed like liquor and cigarette, they do to the soul
what cigarettes do to the lungs.
take care
mike taylor
--
__________________________________________________________________________________
"I think the common trait to most artists is an attraction towards the
thrill of uncertainty, and an impulse to again and again put themselves in a
precarious position, even if it is in a very insulated way. Making records
doesn't threaten your life. If you fuck up you're not going to die, but
nonetheless, the thrill is to do something that takes you by suprise, that makes
you wonder, god, what in me does this concept connect with? What part of me have
I discovered now?"
Brian Eno
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> Ed Darrin wrote:
>
> > i wasn't planning on going to deep blue sea, but thanks for the advice.
> >
> > as for your primary message, i think it's much more interesting than the
> > first.
> >
> > in what i know about games and art, i'm not sure if you want to define
> > meaning the way you have, because in doing so, you limit your scope. by your
> > definition, a game of chess has more meaning than a game of poker has more
> > meaning than playing pac-man, but this is mostly within context of the game
> > itself. if you look at a bigger picture, these games all have the same
> > amount of meaning, which is entertainment, competition, etc. the whole idea
> > of games is to do something dissimilar to everyday routine in order to get
> > away from the humdrum of life. no game exists for any other reason, although
> > some may take advantage of this reason (i.e., someone invents a new video
> > game to make money, but it is the entertainment value of the game that
> > drives the profit).
> >
>
> My view on this is slightly different. I think that art and games(as broad
> categories of human activity) have a great deal of meaning(as broad categories)
> Art and Games provide a very important outlet in human culture. They allow an
> individual to test rules and boundaries, as well as learn to play roles in a
> non-threating environment. Games provide an alternate context to play out and
> practice human situations without real world consequences. The arts allow a
> person to play with ideas and contexts without(theoretically) invoking the wrath
> of dominant cultural mores.
I think these are good observations. I would propose, further:
(1) That games permit creative involvement for persons who
(for whatever internal or external reasons...) cannot
create art. Even those who cannot "create" anything
can participate in games (tennis, golf, poker, bridge,
chess, etc.).
(2) Both games and art permit adults to have fun. It is
generally socially looked down upon for adults to
straightforwardly *play*.
>
> The most important thing to remember about games and art is that they create a
> non real world context for human activities. A game of chess is a metaphor for
> violence(strategic warfare,) but the context of the game removes the violence.
> You can practice chess over and over, and nothing really happens, you cannot
> repeat large scale physical combat with out serious consequences. The same can
> be said for art, just replace violence with experimenting with ideas.
>
> art and games put real situations into a play context. If you physically attack
> me, there will be a problem, but if you change the context to "we are just
> playing," it diffuses the situation. I feel that I might not be getting across
> what I am thinking, Paul Bonhammen wrote a book called "Understanding Culture"
> that looks into the role of play in culture, he is brings this concept across
> far more clearly than I am at the moment. In any event, I think you have to
> approach these things from a broader perspective.
Freud would have called this "sublimation". Again, the points are
well taken. I would like to add something a psychotherapist,
Gordon Hirshhorn once told me:
Other than chance encounters, we can only encounter in reality
what we have previously encountered in fantasy.
>
> > as for art, some would say that art doesn't need meaning, and others would
> > say that it shouldn't have meaning at all (these would be dadaists and the
> > like).
The *meaning* of Dada was to expose the meaninglessness of the
self-styled World Political Order which brought us the all too real
meaninglessness of World War I (not to speak of the bourgeois
hypocrisy from which it arose...).
> >
> > i think the best example here is music. other forms of art, like painting,
> > sculpture, etc, are often expected to represent something or other--even
> > when abstract. but we seem to be resigned to the fact that music is just
> > music in and of itself. it is abstract, and nothing more. in fact, music
> > that does represent something else (cartoon music comes to mind) comes
> > across as weird.
I think Susanne Langer (_Feeling and Form_) would say that music
"represents" feeling.
> >
> > however, these ideas of the meaning of art are still confined to the
> > artworks themselves. if you ask for the meaning of art itself, most artists
> > will say it comes from either a need to create (which i would say is part of
> > human nature), or that art exists without us and we only access it.
Schiller, as quoted by George Steiner (in _After Babel_):
No man knows where the words come from:
The upsurge of meaning from the depths into the light
> >
>
> once again, I think the answer lies in having a broader perspective. I think the
> question that really needs to be asked is not "what do these _particular_ art
> pieces mean?" but rather "what is the function of art within human culture?"
Following Wittgenstein and hermeneutics, I think the question is
always: "What is/are the function(s) of this-here art within this-here
human cultural situation?"
> I
> believe that art is a "safe" area for people to explore and play with ideas, in
> exactly the same way that games allow humans a "safe" area to play out
> real,world situations.
See, e.g., Donald W. Winnicott's fine book: _Playing and Reality_
for details about this.
[snip]
> hollywood films should be taxed like liquor and cigarette, they do to the soul
> what cigarettes do to the lungs.
I would go farther: All spectator activities (see, e.g., Debord's
_The Society of the Spectacle_) shrivel the soul. There should be a
law prohibiting the media from giving any coverage to celebrities
(or at least tax it *heavily*). Let people *play* tennis,
but abolish professional tennis and its zillions of spectators.
If people like football, let them *play* football. Etc. Those
who are confined to wheelchairs/bed and cannot engage in
*any* physical activity (there are not many such persons, at
least except for relatively short periods of time) can be
provided with TV showing real people really playing real
games, not Olympian Gods and Goddesses like O.J. Simpson
jumping over an exit railing in an airport....
The only response to any celebrity's appearance
on the scene should be the lovely phrase from the
old American Express ads: "Who?"
>
> take care
[snip]
Live your own life, and don't just vicarious!
> "I think the common trait to most artists is an attraction towards the
> thrill of uncertainty, and an impulse to again and again put themselves in a
> precarious position, even if it is in a very insulated way. Making records
> doesn't threaten your life. If you fuck up you're not going to die, but
> nonetheless, the thrill is to do something that takes you by suprise, that makes
> you wonder, god, what in me does this concept connect with? What part of me have
> I discovered now?"
> Brian Eno
A friend of mine, Tom Gee, said:
Everything we do is the same thing:
We always learn more about who we are.
Yours in participatory/creative web development....
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bra...@cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Susan R Murray
meaning by Inter...@ix.netcom.com
> art is that they create a non real world context for
> human activities.
Wow. That's it. That is just the thing I was trying to
hit on but couldn't quite put into words.
Games and art only matter if you decided that they ought
to be important.
Unlike, say, going and getting food the value is symbolic.
Symbolic--er I seem to remember this word has caused a lot of
trouble in the past.
<off topic>
Abstract art claims not to symbolize anything .. I don't buy
that because the impact of the work is intermingled with the
audiences understanding of it.
If fact, I think I'll make a list of "Bad Words" or words
that seem to be at the center of a lot of debate (that makes
it hard to be precise when using them and in that way "bad")
BAD WORDS
symbolic
meaning
message
value
Having read the discussion "Re: Postmodernism
actionable?" I might add:
postmodern
modern
too the list. Any others?
</off topic>
Susan