Arne Kjell Vikhagen

Digital Representation, CKK, Chalmers University of Technology

Gadamer’s concept of play

Download Gadamer’s concept of play (72,37 kB)

This article discusses Gadamer’s concept of play seen from the perspective of computer game theory. My own perspective as an artist working with computer game engines is presented by elaborating the relation between play and art, a relation that Gadamer has also focused on. Gadamer links the nature of play and the nature of art, and explains how the immanent character of play stands in relation to the player and nature. Moreover, he suggests that play and art are closely connected in terms of what we perceive as essential or even true in terms of how our representations of art through imitation extracts the essential qualities of the object we investigate. However, Gadamer’s views are far from straightforward since the relations between play, art and truth are both layered and intertwined with each other. I will attempt to clarify Gadamer’s theories on play through the exemplification of computer games. How can his concept of play be relevant to our understanding of computer games?

In order to discuss the relation between computer games and Gadamer’s concept of play, the first thing we need to do is look beyond the “play” character of computer games as “just for fun”. Gadamer appears to have much more serious intentions in mind, namely the seemingly paradoxical notion of the “seriousness of play”, which I will come to later in the article. His purpose seems to be to link play with understanding the essence of things. The paradox lies in that to fulfill the seriousness of play, the player has to treat play without being serious.

First of all, and in order to understand what Gadamer means by play, we need to know about the double meaning of the German word Spiel, which can be translated into both play and game, in the same way as the word Jeu in French. Although play and game have different meanings, it does not mean that Spiel can smoothly be translated into either game or play. We need to look further into what distinguishes the terms. Gadamer refers to “the game” [das Spiel] in the definite form or in plural form “games” [Spiele] to signify a differentiation from “play”, even though the difference between the two terms is not easily defined. Computer game theory, for instance through the work of Gonzalo Frasca2, has separated the two terms through looking at their difference in rule structures.

Frasca points out that even though a game has a more developed set of rules; play also has rules, even though they are often subtle. Frasca’s reading of Piaget suggests that game rules could successfully be connected to rules that determine victory or defeat. This is not the case for rules in play. These are referred to by Piaget as “regularities” and by Frasca as paidea rules. Rules in play do not determine whether someone has won or lost, but instead regulate the activity from within. The way to move a chess piece on the board is governed by rules that do not determine victory or defeat, and is thereby considered paidea rules. Using the same argument, we can say that the rules that state when the King is in chess mate are game rules.

Frasca like Gadamer considers game as a more specific form of play: Qualities from play are inherited by game. Game seems to be treated as a special case of play, a case where victory is determined and the game space is confined by for example a board or a football field. Time is usually either limited or a determinant for victory. In play, on the other hand, there is less focus on temporal and spatial properties, even though they might exist, just as in Frasca’s argument. To extend this argument slightly, we could say that play and game is distinguished by the extent of order. Together they make up a unity of order and disorder, which accounts for their importance, but also for their complexity.