Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The distinction between toys and games is built into grammar itself: one plays games but plays with toys. Although some thinkers have recognized the importance of the distinction, their insights are often contradictory and vague, and the word toy is used unsystematically to refer to a wide range of objects and associated play-activities. To remedy this problem a phenomenological approach to play could be helpful, but those that exist rarely discuss the difference between forms of play, instead using playfulness as ambiguous shorthand for freedom from rules. Beginning with Charles Baudelaire’s 1853 essay, “The Philosophy of Toys,” the author surveys and synthesizes various theories of toys to produce a detailed account of those objects that conduce to toy-play, focusing on insignificance as the defining phenomenological quality of toys. He then uses speech act theory to offer a definition of a toy—an invitation to play with its identity—and explores how the existence of such an invitation depends not only on the intrinsic qualities of the object of play, but also its context and the identity of the player.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Agamben, G. (1993). Infancy and history (L. Heron, Trans.). New York: Verso.
Apter, M. J., & Kerr, J. H. (Eds.). (1991). Adult play: A reversal theory approach. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. CrossRef
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans). New York: Hill and Wang.
Bateson, G. (1955). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports,2, 39–51.
Baudelaire, C.  (1995). The philosophy of toys. In I. Parry & P. Keegan (Eds.), Essays on dolls. London: Syrens.
Benjamin, W. (1999). Selected writings. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Cavell, S. (1995). Notes and afters on the opening of Wittgenstein’s investigations. Philosophical passages: Wittgenstein, Emerson, Austin, Derrida. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crawford, C. (2003). Chris Crawford on game design. San Fransico: New Riders Publishing.
Eco, U. (1993). Misreadings (W. Weaver, Trans.). Orlando: Harcourt.
Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. Harrisburg: Continuum.
Hancher, M. (1979). The classification of cooperative illocutionary acts. Language in Society,8(1), 1–14. CrossRef
Huizinga, J. (1971). Homo Ludens. London: Paladin.
Iser, W. (1995). The play of the text. In W. Iser & S. Budick (Eds.), Languages of the unsayable: The play of negativity in literature and literary theory. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Johnstone-Sheets, M. (2003). Child’s play: A multidisciplinary perspective. Human Studies,26, 409–430. CrossRef
Ryan, M. L. (2001). Narrative as virtual reality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society,5(1), 1–23. CrossRef
Shaine, F. (1964). What can we do with blocks?. New York: Wonder Books.
Suits, B. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1986). Toys as culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2009). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tiffany, D. (2000). Toy medium. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Towards a Theory of Toys and Toy-Play
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Neuer Inhalt/© julien tromeur | Fotolia