Note: I am posting this reflection with a bit of delay as I had a ligament restoration surgery on one of my thumbs recently and was unable to type for few weeks.
Reading this chapter of Monica Vilhauer’s book “Gadamer’s Ethics of Play” built on the ideas of German philosopher Gardener, was a challenge for me. I struggled at times with the vocabulary and some of the meaning but after a while and once the jargon was cleared with the help of a dictionary, it all made sense and I started to really enjoyed it.
In her book, Vilhauer argues that artwork and spectator are engaged ‘in a continuous to and fro play of presentation and recognition in which meaning is communicated and a shared understanding of some subject matter take place’(Vilhauer, 2010, P31). That is to say that “arts must be understood as part of an event in which meaning is communicated and a shared understanding is reach” (Vilhauer, 2010, P31).
This make full sense to me as it is exactly how I classify films as a filmmaker. Indeed, I have always thought that they are two kinds of films: the ones that entertain and the ones that are artful and have a meaning. In the first category I would put all the films that’s have a basic storyline and hardly no messages that is to say most of the action films, hero films and all other kinds of entertainment films. This kind of films do not appeal to me as I find them boring and shallow. On the other hand, art films are very often crafted skilfully with the aim to share in-depth feelings and emotions. The storyline also “talks” to the audience and shares an understanding of life and of the world we are living or that has been. It is impossible for me to watch this kind of films without being touched and transformed by the experience. Similarly, as a filmmaker I do not want to create films that don’t invite the audience onto a reflective pathway, as sharing emotions and meaningful insights is the aim of my creative endeavour. I had never thought of it as playing but thinking of it in a deeper more philosophical way it is true that this back and forth exchange of knowledge has a lot to do with playing. Gardiner explains that “Play is fundamentally something larger than the individual player or his mental states; it is a pattern of movements that services the players and is something to which both players belong” (Vilhauer, 2010, P32). Indeed, learning is a form of play.
Experiencing this new understanding of play made me think of a conversation I had quite a while back when my daughter was just three and started school (French curriculum starts at three years old). I remembered that my daughter’s teacher explained to me that kids were learning how to write with a specific game. Indeed, the teacher would make them do and play with the shadow of a rabbit made with their hands. Once the kids had mastered the art of “rabbit shadow making” while playing, the teacher would place a pen in their hands and would move onto the next stage: learning how to write. The hand movement of making a “rabbit shadow” and writing being surprisingly enough extremely similar! It is also interesting to note that in this example the process of learning is not conscious which makes it even more powerful and interesting.
So how can this new understanding of play be integrated in my teaching in order to favour the learning process?
It seems to me that the best way to apply this new understanding is to incorporate as much as possible in my lectures, games, quizzes and any other ludic activities. Allegory, metaphor, puns and humour can also be considered as a game with words and should therefore also be used. It is also interesting to notice that the use of games in a classroom could potentially have other implications than just helping the learning process. Possible benefits could be: reducing barriers and distance between teachers and students and increasing interaction and engagement. Games are therefore a great tool for pedagogy.