Picture made by my good friend NeffoArt

Intro

There are a lot of things that you can think of when you hear the words "video games", it could be everything from "Lok-thar ogar" to "profit". The last one especially since the video game industry is booming all over the world and making profit like never before, gaining capital to expand and even evolve the technology and industry. Who knows what the industry will look like in the future!

Sic Parvis Magna...don't you agree?

Video games are in other words a financial successful entertainment, bringing joy to both young and old. It has also been acknowledged as a platform for art, as several games have been experimental or carried with them themes taken directly from philosophical schools. More and more artists are using digital games in ways you would've never thought of back in the days when Atari 2600 where hitting the stores.

What I'm going to present with this essay, is another perspective on video games...or rather: the act of PLAYING video games and what it means. I'm not going to talk about experiences or how video gaming affect everyday life directly, since I already covered it on another essay of mine about how art affect our lives. Instead, I'm going to present to you a perspective with the help of one of the biggest philosophers of the 17^th century: René Descartes.

René Descartes – Dualism

You may have heard about the classic phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum", or in english: I think, therefore I am. This is the man that said those thought provoking words. There is much to say about Descartes, like his contribution to rationalism and science, and the way he offered a philosophy that would influence even future philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre.

What we are going to focus on is his famous dualism. Descartes argued that humans are composed of two substances: the mind/spirit and the physical/body. Although these two substances can exist independent without each other (Rozemond, 1998). They also complete each other: Even if the mind can exist on its own, it needs a body to act and extend into the physical world, while the physical body can exist without a mind of its own, however it would only act in an automatic way, like the animals do (Descartes meant that animals were more or less just machines without emotion). This presented a statement of a life after death since when you die, it's only the physical body that dies while the spirit lives on forever. However, it is also important to mention the struggle between the body and the mind. Even if both are needed to make a human, the fact that they are independent makes the symbiosis troublesome, especially for the physical body. Descartes argued that it is in fact from the physical body that, even if giving the mind an extension to the physical world, even limited it's control by having emotions and physical needs like nutriment and sexual desires (Rozemond, 1998). So ironically, even if the body is the reason the mind can execute its plans and ideas..it is also the very same thing that limits its own actions.

Another important thing to mention before I go on and analyze the act of gaming, there is another component that is a part of this dualism: Sensation. According to Descartes, sensation serves as a proof that there is a union between mind and body; since sensation is produced by the body, but the mind helps make something more of it (Rozemond, 1998). Without the mind, the body couldn't make anything of the sensation since it's not made to handle sensations; and without body there wouldn't be any sensation for the mind to process. The sensation itself plays such a big role in Descartes philosophy, that there have even been discussions that there is a Trialism instead of a Dualism, meaning the sensation itself could actually be a substance when in fact it is "just" a modus¹ shared between mind and body.

Now that I have given you a brief presentation of the dualism of Descartes, it is time to present to you how video gaming is in fact a technological form of the dualism.

Two substances co-existing – The act of playing

If I were to ask someone what is needed for gaming, one would usually ONLY talk about the technicalities: a computer, headset, controller, console, tv etc. I find it quite unnecessary to do so, it's like if Descartes had to include every body part of a human being when he spoke of the physical body. Sure, they are all a part of the body, but not needed to include when we talk about an extending substance...we only need to say "this substance is extending" to understand what parts are included and the same goes for the video game console itself: which serves as our extending substance for this essay.

We now have a video game console/our extending substance, but what about the thinking substance? What about the mind? Well, there is another important thing we need to make video gaming possible: we actually need someone to play the game, a player who will serve as the thinking subject. Like the mind/soul of Descartes dualism, the player is the force that commands the body/video game according the their will. They aren't in full control entirely, since the video game/body has its limits depending how the game/body is constructed. For example; we can't raise an army in an action game, but we certainly can in a strategy game. Different games/bodies offer different possibilities for what the mind/player can do.

So if we would illustrate this dualism, it would look like this:

Now that we have identified the two substances of video gaming, we can finally talk about what becomes of this dualism. For you see: both of these "substances" can exist independently, but they make much more of their existence by interacting with each other. Just like the case of Descartés dualism; the two substances together create something one of them couldn't create alone: Sensation.

One could make the argument that the sensations video games present to us exist alone in the body/video game, stating that the mind plays no role here. Others would say that it's the other way around: sensations are simple something created from the mind itself, therefor the body/video game is not needed. I disagree completely, with both arguments. A "sensation" like joy/sorrow/anger/fear doesn't exist on its own, it need a chemistry of two substances to come to life. How could someone tell?

To begin with, showing someone, for example, a video clip of a dog playing with its owner can not only give someone what we call "joy", it can give fear/disgust/sorrow for different people...all depending on what memories (which affect the substance "mind") a clip of a dog would give us. Some may think of happy moments, some think of their dog that passed away, while others think of when they were attacked by a dog when they were a child. While the clip only provides the means of sensation, it is up to the mind to make something of the sensation. If sensation existed in the clip itself, then everyone would feel the same sensation...the individuality of what sensations may come proves that sensation doesn't exist on its own.

And this applies EVEN more to video games. Not only do they offer "satisfaction" in various ways trough genres fitting for different people, a lot of today's games even offer stories that can potentially bring out "sorrow" or "guilt"or "apathy". Of course, it all depends on the mind/player that interacts with the body/video game: it has to be the right mind and the right body for the best sensations to come out.

All you need to do is look up gamer reactions on youtube, and you'll see several examples of sensations games offer us!

Differences and purpose

Now we have presented how playing video games could be interpreted as the modern day equivalent of the dualism of Descartes, since we can see the similarities between the thinking substance - the player, and the similarities between the extending substance – the video game console. But it is also important to talk about the obvious differences, since this essay's purpose is not to revive the philosophies of Descartes...since after 400 years they ARE outdated and irrelevant in today's philosophical discussions. First of, the dualism Descartes presented was a description how the human body and mind worked, and by today's standards rely too much on spirituality as scientists/doctors don't believe in souls in a medical manner. For one thing Descartes didn't believe that animals had souls, and therefore couldn't feel pain or sadness...they are simply machines. Don't think I have to say more to make this point stronger.

"What's the difference this and a regular dog?"

Secondly, the player is the one having emotions and acts upon them when they are playing the game, while according to Descartes there is a battle going on between the mind and body (wants vs needs). The console is not trying to take control over you or acts sometimes according to its own needs, since it is just a simple machine and not a functional biological body (until cyborg-consoles pop up soon).

With that said, I will still say that the practical parts of the dualism of Descartes still feel similar to the act of playing video games, especially when it comes to the player's mind's dependence on the console body to feel sensations they wouldn't feel otherwise in their everyday life. Empowerment, curiosity, excitement and so many more sensations that have been and are being given to us that play video games, and in other words take part in the modern synthetic dualism of Descartes that we have created for ourselves.

Potential further discussion – Cyberpunk and transhumanism

Whether you believe in the dualism of Rene Descartes or not, you can't deny that we humans live life to experience sensations in various ways. We are, after all, emotional creatures that want to do more than just survive physically, but also find enjoyment psychologically. The excitement of exploration, the pride of achieving something bigger than everyday life, the relief of getting rid of something troublesome....all those things are what makes us go trough the days. And as I mentioned before; video games offer sensations that other hobbies/activities can't always give us, even if they are synthetic and can only give us a limited amount of the required sensation. One can't help to ask if technology can take a step further: can it offer us sensations that feel so real that we would even give up the sensations the regular world would give us?

The topic has been brought up before in cyberpunk and transhumanism, which has been featured in popular fiction like anime, movies and literature. A great example would be Neuromancer, a novel written by William Gibson (1984) which would not only be the start of the cyberpunk genre, but would also invent the concept of cyberspace and virtual reality. In the world of Neuromancer exists "The Matrix", which is a virtual reality space which has the function of what internet has to us these days. The main protagonist, Henry Dorsett Case, was once a brilliant computer hacker which used to be hooked up to the Matrix but was caught and had his central nervous system disturbed by mycotoxin, which makes him unable to log on to the virtual reality. Altough Case is spared and allowed to live, he feels dead on the inside and just views his body as "mere meat" that only exists to sustain his consciousness long enough until he can log on into cyberspace once again. He tries to cope with reality by using drugs, but nothing will come close to what he experienced in the virtual reality. He is first truly alive when technology can extend him further, and when he's finally able to log on to the matrix again...he can't help to cry tears of joy.

All of this for the sensations you desire

Without going in for a fully detailed analyze of the book, we can clearly see that Case's longing to experience the matrix comes from his disappointment in the real world: after witnessing the amazing cyberspace, the sensations his regular senses can give him won't simply do anymore. He has become addicted to the extension that technology offers him.

Even if video games have in no way as much effect on us as The Matrix has on Case, I can't help to compare what we have to what Case is trying to get. Even if René Descartes dualism is outdated and in no way describes how the human body works, you might argue that today's technology and the intellectual discussions of cyberpunk/transhumanism, might be a form of a modern interpretation of the dualism: in which we humans are the thinking substance, and the technology we have created will become our extending substance. After all, who knows what sensations awaits us the day after tomorrow?

(1In the philosophy of Descartes, modus would be the equivalent of "attribute" or "quality")

Reference list

Gibson, William. (1984). Neuromancer. London: Voyager.

Rozemond, Marleen. (1998). Descarte's Dualism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Of all the interests/hobbies in my life, cosplay is probably one of them that has made a greater impact on me these last 7 years. It helped me meet my current friends, made me get out of my comfort zone and try new things, like getting on stage. It helped me fight my insecurities/phobias. It truly is an hobby that has played a important role in my life. I'm not the only one who has been deeply affected, most of my friends have a close relation to this hobby... some even told me that it saved their life and motivates them to fight their inner demons. For some people, cosplay is their raison d'etre (reason for existence). With a hobby that important, you can't really help but to reflect on what truly makes it stand out from other hobbies like gaming, skydiving, racing etc.

"But what is cosplay?" one might ask. To begin with, the word itself is a abbreviation of the words "costume play". It is a hobby where you dress up as various characters, mostly from popular culture like video games, movies, comics etc. Some buy their costumes or use bought garments, while others make their costumes from scratch by themselves to represent the character they want. This is the basic way to describe this hobby, but there are tons of details or perspectives of it.

You could get tons of answers from different people at cosplay conventions, but if you would ask me: one of the reasons cosplay truly stands out is because it is art. Then again, there are many ways to interpret the word "art". Some think of museums, Da Vinci, that boring subject at school, a way to express emotions or portray current society. It's a difficult thing to define what art truly is.

However, about half a year ago I found a book that would have a big impact on how I perceive art: The Relevance of Beautiful (Die aktualitet des Schönen), written by Hans-Georg Gadamer and published in 1977. In this book, Gadamer argues that there are not one but three analogies to describe art, which sets it apart from other activities or aesthetics. These 3 distinct analogies are: art as play, art as symbol and art as festival. In this essay, I will present how Gadamer relates these analogies to art, and motivate how and why these descriptions fit well with cosplay. With the help of a modern philosopher, I will prove that cosplay indeed is an art form like no other!

Disclaimer: for reference, I'm using a swedish copy of the book (Konst som spel, symbol och fest), so the pages where the actual quotes and passages taken from the book may differ in copies written in the english version.

Play

Gadamer begins discussing art as "play" by stating that humans have based their culture around play. It's an elementary part of our life (Gadamer, page 69, 1977), from playing with each other as children to playing soccer/board games, it plays a bigger part than we can imagine! But what does it really mean when you are playing a game? The simple answer is: an activity that in a varied way repeats itself. This can also apply to, for example, the way the waves play, it comes and goes and without a set course. "Play" is a self-motion, that serves no purpose. However, when humans play, they gladly put some reason into it..like it's an act without a final purpose, but the act itself becomes the purpose: you mean something with the play (Gadamer, page 71, 1977). It becomes a communicative action.

We can already see a connection now between art and play, but Gadamer goes even further. When talking about "Play", it is also important to mention the scope/room of the play: what can be understood and what can be communicated. Look at a simple game like golf: you can only act in one way to win and finish the game, you can find excitement in different ways but the end result tends to be the same. In Art, the scope of the play leaves room for many interpretations for different people to focus on: some view the Mona Lisa as a work of art that defines the renaissance, some look at the wonderful strokes, some look at the details like her hands or smile...the interpretations or communication is almost endless! Every interpretation is your way of playing the game: art is a free form of play.

The same thing can be said about cosplay. From the earlier description, it seems about right with the sewing and constructing of patterns being an activity that repeats itself in various ways. After that you could make the argument that cosplay doesn't offer a big room for interpretations: the goal of cosplay crafting is to look similar to a character. It has a definite and universal goal, in other words.

Cosplayer: Swedicandy cosplay

Photo: JL Cosplay.Studio 

Cosplayer: Nabbe cosplay

Cosplayer: Izelyca
Photo: Paxby cosplay

There isn't ONE way of doing a character since the intrepretations, the crafting, the purpose of the crafting itself, varies in so many ways. People have time after time said that cosplay is for everyone and amusingly enough, they were more right than they even imagined. Everyone might not enjoy your cosplay, but the same applies to art...art isn't meant for everyone to enjoy in the same manner, there are so many ways to find enjoyment in it. Cosplay is a free form of play, which is one of the reasons that it is art.

However, by just using free form of play as definition for art...much more activities could be considered art: some play soccer by changing a few rules, some play a game where the goal is to lose and so forth. We still have two more analogies to present before we can make it absolutely clear that cosplay is art. Next up is "symbol"

Symbol

Gadamer first presents an interesting insight on where the word "symbol" comes from: it was a greek term for a token of remembrance (tessera hospitatis) that could be broken into two and given to a guest so his/her descendant could come to the home and join the two pieces together, to kindle an act of recognition (Gadamer, page 83, 1977). Symbol is something you used for identifying an old acquaintance.

Art works in a smiliar way, says Gadamer in similar vein as its beauty is the ever sought after fragment that completes and makes our lives whole. A symbol that stands on its own but still becomes complete and meaningful thanks to the eye of the beholder (Gadamer, page 84, 1977).

Yet the artwork itself speak to us as its own work, not just as any conveyer of messages. Art simply doesn't refer to ONE thing, it doesn't exist simply for ONE representation. Furthermore, art differs greatly from what humanity has achieved from a productive stand point with crafts and technique: every product from there is only meant to serve as tools, they are easily reproduced and replaceable. For art, it's the other way around: it is irreplaceable. Ruining a artwork is even to this day and age an almost religious misdeed, just becuase, compared to a simple product; it cannot be replaced by another exact copy. If it's lost then it is lost forever. Even to this day and age, when we have technology to make copies, a photo or a CD is still just a reproduction...not a representation.

As you probably noticed, the first half of this segment connects well with cosplay: cosplay works very well as something you use for identifying an acquaintance...namely people who are part of the same fandom as you. If you would ask anyone at a convention how they first met, it would probably be becuase their friend wore a symbol, a cosplay, that was connected either to their own costume or simply to something of their interest!

Cosplay: Rebecca Storhaug and Breezy Glover  (Photo: Gunnar Nilsson)

Cosplay: Mizzpig Cosplay & Bringmethekelly Cosplay (Photo: Micheal Bengtsson)

Cosplay: Richard Desiatnik (Photo by: Louise Vedin)

Cosplay is also a symbol that stands on its own but gains a unique value thanks to the eye of the beholder. We already mentioned how it can gain a value by simply being a part of the fandom it represents, but it can also be appreciated for: the historical connections you could make from observing the design, how the cosplay reminds you of different emotions like fear/madness/innocence, childhood memories. The skill of the craftsmanship itself just brings appreciation in incredibly many ways (the seams, the color work)....yes I could go on since there are endless possible ways to appreciate cosplay!

Cosplays (left to right): Svärdsdotter Design & customes and Johanna Nybelius

And lastly: I can even present an argument that cosplay, just like Gadamer's vision of art, can never be replaced. You might think "but I can just make another cosplay, or someone at the conventions might cosplay the same character (with the same outfit)". And yes it is true, cosplay can definitely be reproduced and look similar to each other, that you cannot deny. However, I would say that you are only thinking about one side of cosplay, the finished product. There is another side of cosplay that truly helps it become art. You see, even if someone might do the same character or design...no one can do the same seams, go trough the same planning, use the exact same fabric everywhere, work with the same dedication and even inspiration as you did. The result might look the same, but the craftsmanship is still unique. It is irreplacable.

From Left to right: Morran cosplay (Photo: Flupps), Red Lady shinigami cosplay  (Photo: Norea Cederblad), Ninjutsuki Cosplay (Photo: Kristina Johansson)

It doesn't matter how the finished product looks like, the process of the creation makes it unique and irreplacable

We have now gone trough two of the analogies to describe art according to Gadamer, and yet it is not over. We still have ONE last analogy that will help define cosplay as art: "Festival".

Festival

Gadamer begins by making it clear that the meaning of festival is to oppose every tendency to isolation, it is the ultimate expression of community: the festival is made for everyone (Gadamer, page 96, 1977). Other than that, it is truly hard to define what a festival truly is. You could bring in different results from science or philology and yet don't achieve any proper answer. However, Gadamer decides to try to define it from one observation: that festivals are part of holidays we celebrate. What defines "to celebrate" is "to not work", since work is what separates us human beings, and by celebrating we finally join together again. With this, Gadamer makes the statement; that to arrange festivals is an art form, it has after all some defined customs, but still has freedom to allow variations. This might sound like the earlier analogy "Play", but it is here this analogy will go in its own direction.

The festival has its own time structure: when there is a festival, the time simply doesn't pass trough various forms off relieving moments, but passes as you take part of the whole festivity. Even if the festival has a detailed timetable, it is only so that the festivity can be performed. In other words: it got a time of its own. Time itself becomes a festivity, you simply forget the clock and your appointments. It s the same with art: for an example as soon as someone listens to music, they simply allow time to flow and pay less mind to it. When someone connects with a painting, either from personal experience or knowledge of its specific art form, time flies as you, in a way, enter the world of the artwork. We learn to linger with the art, but this lingering never becomes tedious. The more we engage with the art, the more it speaks to us and shows us perspective and layers that makes it richer. Gadamer finishes his analogy with these words: This might be our allotted finite equivalent to what we call eternity (Gadamer, page 105, 1977).

We can start right off with comparing this analogy with cosplay by stating the inclusiveness this art form brings us: cosplay and the community it comes with opposes the tendency of isolation. So many have told me that they were alone before they entered the cosplay community, they found a way to break their tendency of isolation, made from either fear, sorrow or mental illness. And this artform is not restricted to anyone: no matter your body type, skin color, height, gender etc...you are all welcome to bring forth different interpretations, versions of your favorite characters. Cosplay is made for everyone. There are those who would say otherwise, but ironically it is the same people who wouldn't identify cosplay as an artform. Which is fair since they aren't artists to begin with.

Left to right: Sorghrim Cosplay, Johanna Nybelius,  Pia Merlilin

No matter how you look, you're still an artist!

And finally I think it's safe to say: that cosplay got a time of its own. Because whenever I start crafting costumes, whether working on a prop, cutting patterns or sewing, I can't help but to feel like time flows. I've found myself forgetting to check the clock, forgetting deadlines (even forgotten to eat sometimes). Time itself has become a festivity, thanks to cosplay. Even if you don't agree with me that the crafting-process would qualify as what makes cosplay art, then how about when we go to cosplay conventions? Whether you walk around in your own costume or simply walk around and enjoy the convention on its own: you simply can't help but to look around and see the endless forms of beautiful costumes all the cosplayers that have put tons of time, effort and passion into. I remember my first convention back in 2009 and how the hours passed as I walked around, taking pictures and applauding people for their amazing work on their costumes. It even gets better when you've made your own costumes, then the works of others become more familiar, and you find even more things to discuss or inspect. In other words: the more we engage with cosplay, the more it speaks to us and shows us perspective and layers that makes it richer, like art.

First and latest cosplay by: Darkesttears Design (Photo: The Kensry-kun)

A cosplayer's time flies like none other

Conclusion

It's amazing how much happiness a hobby can give you, but it's even more amazing when you can fall in love with it more than ever after seeing it from another perspective. When I first began cosplaying, I simply saw it as a way to spend quality time with friends or to simply try a new thing to see how it would affect my life. Little did I know how it would change me as a person and give me happiness, like few hobbies have ever done. 

For me it has been breaking isolation, being a symbol and a free form of play...what has it been for you?

But what really is wonderful, is that by just reading a 40 year old book, I can't help but to fall even more in love with this hobby. Many would argue that if you try to rationalize or have a more in-depth discussion about cosplay, it would either be futile or it could even make you look down on this particular hobby that is supposed to make you happy. But after reading this book, finding connections between its message and cosplay, it hasn't made me look down on this hobby. It has rather made me realize it is so much more than just a simple activity to pass time: it is an art form that has managed to change the lives of so many people all over the world, in more ways than they ever could've imagined. It's amazing to find that cosplay, often associated with "nerds" or "no life", can even be loved or admired from an artistic, philosophical and even academic stand point. It is one of the things in the world that has proven to me that love can be even sweeter than it already is. Something already beautiful and wonderful can be more than that: you just need to open your eyes for the ever broadening horizon.

I can't wait to see how this art form will evolve and change the lives for more people in the future.

Reference list

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1977). Konst som spel, symbol och fest. Ludvika: Dualis Förlag AB.