The other day I had an article by John Pavlus shared with me. It was on Ian Bogost’s new book “Play Anything”. It peaked my interest by how many similarities (and a few differences) Ian’s writing has with the mission of Playful Living, so I figured it would be a great venue for discussion. I haven’t read the book yet. I thought it would be more fun to post a link to the article, my thoughts and impressions solely based on that, and then read the book. I just bought it the other day and it’s sitting next to my computer as I’m typing right now. I’ll do a follow up post after I’m done reading it. I almost forgot my plan and starting reading it last night, but don’t worry, I remembered and refrained from tainting my superficial post with extra insight. So here’s the link.
The beginning of the article outlines the amount of topics he is cross sectioning and his admission that “I’m not sure it was a good idea to make a milkshake out of all of [those things],” This is something I connected strongly with. the essence of Analogous Learning and play is to connect subjects together, often in experimental ways to see what happens. The fact that he tackles a wide variety and jokes that it might not be a good idea is a great example of these concepts in action.
“Along the way, Bogost unpacks the meaning of play, creativity, satisfaction, connection, and (arguably) life. If that can’t make you a better designer—and human—what can? Buckle up, though—because Bogost’s big idea is a paradoxical one.”
In the next paragraph however, I’m a bit surprised by the condescending tone that ensues.
“YOUR IMAGINATION IS OVERRATED, NOT SPECIAL, AND QUITE POSSIBLY YOUR OWN WORST ENEMY (DEAL WITH IT)
Bogost has a serious beef with what most creative types consider their defining and most precious attribute: a “rich inner world.” After all, aren’t imagination and introspection the very things that set the Picassos and Woolfs of the world apart from the shmucks in gray flannel suits?
Short answer: nope. Whatever wonders that may reside within your own special-snowflake skull wilt in comparison to the fractally unfolding immensity of plain old reality. According to Bogost, “play” happens in the world, not in your head. Which means that anything—literally anything—can become an instrument or game, a plaything and a playground, if we’re simply willing to look beyond the confines of our own navels.”
On one had, the tone seems counterproductive to encouraging play, on the other hand; I can appreciate that he is trying to impress on people how fascinating reality is; and his last sentence, acknowledging that anything can become an instrument or game, is an echo of my own philosophy. It seems we agree on acknowledging the value (and/or potential value) of every little thing around us. Part of the philosophy of Playful Living is to view everything in terms of relationships. The most obvious is that we have relationships with each other; we also have relationships with ourselves, plants, animals, our activities, our bodies, rocks, tools, weather, other inanimate objects; any thing, concept, or action that we encounter, there is some type of relationship (and I’m sure this even isn’t comprehensive.) At this point Ian and I might diverge on our ideas about what imagination and creativity are. I view creativity as our ability to connect these different relationships together. Our imagination is influenced by the world around us. We then use our imagination to create new ideas, inventions, innovations, and expressions not from some isolated inner world but through our filter of experience, relationships, senses, and probably a lot of other things that I/we don’t know about. Our imagination therefore, is affecting the world around us and visa versa. It’s a relationship.
So I don’t really agree that there is a conflict between our imagination and interacting with the world around us, however, I’m curious as to the philosophies that Bogost has encountered to inspire him in this direction. Maybe there are people out there encouraging self focus at the expense of having relationships with the outside world?
The last part of my review of the review is an appreciation of this paragraph,
“I don’t feel compelled to require the reader to adopt my position as the sole and definitive answer for all situations and circumstances,” Bogost says. “And I think that position is consistent with the ideas themselves: If you really can play anything, then by necessity there is a time for deep and worldful attention, and a time for throwing your shit away when it doesn’t bring you joy, and a time for brusque pragmatism, too.”
I immediately think, “For everything there is a season.” I know it’s kind of cheesy. Probably also why Pavlus mentions, “That may sound like an intellectual cop-out, but it’s actually the logical consequence of taking Bogost’s book seriously.” I agree with his point even though I haven’t read the book and would like to unabashedly expound on it. By running the gambit of allowing ourselves to go through various phases or attitudes such as these, we gain more reference points for understanding ourselves and the world around us. There is also this sense of getting a feel for our needs and interactions with life and that embracing the natural fluctuations is probably healthy. It seems that Bogost is also doubly encouraging this freedom by not taking his position overly seriously; an important attribute, in my opinion, for being playful and fostering relationships.
And now I’m excited to read his book, see what I can learn, and find out what type of misinterpretations and assumptions I’m making from the article. Get back to you later!