Advertisement

Dincs as Worldviews: Things that Communicate a Mind

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores toys as ‘gatherings’ of players that communicate a sense of the player’s world and its concerns to other players and non-players The examination of Banarasi toys illustrates the quintessential property of Play-things to gather, negotiate, and communicate matters of concern. These Things (Dincs) gather players into rituals and ceremonies, as well as for assembling and negotiating concerns as manifested in canons, conventions, and beliefs for embodying in the Play-thing. This perspective broadens the definition of Banarasi toys from a ludic expression alone to a cultural representation. In this sense, Play-Things communicate not only what they are, but also the mind of the players.

References

  1. Appadurai, A. (1988). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baudrillard, J. (1994). The system of collecting. In J. Elsener & R. Cardinal (Eds.), The cultures of collecting (pp. 8–38). London: Reaktion Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, B. (1998). How to do things with things (a toy story). Critical Inquiry, 24(4), 935–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coomarswamy. (1977). The part of art in Indian life. In R. Lipsey (Ed.), Coomarswamy: Selected papers (pp. 80). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cornell‚ P. (1993). Saker. Om tingens synlighet. (Quotes translated by Per Linde.) Hedemora: Gidlunds Förlag.Google Scholar
  6. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forty‚ A. (1986). Objects of Desire. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  8. Heidegger‚ M. (1971). Poetry‚ Language‚ Thought. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought (reissued in 2013).Google Scholar
  9. Huizinga‚ J. (1955). Homo ludens. Boston: The Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and society studies in the sociology of culture past and present (vol. 6, pp. 1–40). Greenwich: Jai Press.Google Scholar
  11. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Latour, B. (2008). A Cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). Falmouth, Cornwall, Annual International Conference of the Design History Society.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Patil‚ K. (2015). Designing without a designer: A case study of decision making in banarasi toys. The International Journal of Designed Objects‚ 9(3)‚ 1–17.Google Scholar
  15. Patil, K., & Athavankar, U. (2012). Un-authored artifacts: It takes a whole community to make a khilona (pp. 37–45). Melbourne: Australia, University of South Denmark.Google Scholar
  16. Roopnarine, J., Hossain, Z., Gill, P., & Brophy, H. (1994). Play in East Indian context. Children’s play in diverse cultures (pp. 9–31). Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  17. Schwartzman, B. (1978). Transformations: The anthropology of children’s play. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Telier, A., et al. (2011). Design things. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of TechnologyPowaiIndia

Personalised recommendations