 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Wittgenstein was a serious philosopher. He was also the first to academically try defining what a game is. His conclusion was that all definitions ultimately failed. Play, rules, competition; these couldn’t pin it down. And, the continuing dictionary version — that a game is a structured activity that is different from work or art — really doesn’t ring true. Just look between the covers of this issue… Maybe the problem is language. We try to define what a game is using language and then we realise that even animals play games. They offer us a few clues. Games can teach us to hunt, to win, to love and simply to enjoy playing. Games prepare us for life. They are not separate from it, but part of it. And, when already uncertain times become even more precarious — unexpected economic woes or global health threats — one senses the game change; new strategies or even new rules for challenging times ahead. When it looks like it might become a game of survival, new creative strategies emerge; from big business to high art or social attitudes, preparing for the new big games. Some gear up and get into training. Others still take another route. The elaborate fantasy of a vampire’s life of the living dead might evade the horrible threats of aging or real death. And all of these things are reflected in the mirror that is our contemporary culture; design, art, the built environment. From deadly weapons to sporting larks; high finance to dark hedonistic thrills, we all play some form of game. Lessons learned in the playground may work in the Game of Life; what altruism teaches us may yield social capital. And the trophy? Harder to define. Wearing the ultimate precious jewels? The exotic hide of a rare beast displayed for all to see? A world title or personal achievement? Ultimately only we can decide how, why and where we have been losers or winners. Current issue: Website:
|
 |
|||
|
|
|
||
