Contribution to a Situationist Definition of Play
Internationale Situationniste #1 (June 1958)

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/play.html

Excerpt:
In this historical perspective, play – the permanent experimentation with ludic novelties – appears to be not at all separate from ethics, from the question of the meaning of life. The only success that can be conceived in play is the immediate success of its ambiance, and the constant augmentation of its powers. Thus, even in its present co-existence with the residues of the phase of decline, play cannot be completely emancipated from a competitive aspect; its goal must be at the very least to provoke conditions favorable to direct living. In this sense it is another struggle and representation: the struggle for a life in step with desire, and the concrete representation of such a life.

This can also be compared to _Finite and Infinite Games – A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility_ by James P. Carse

Along with Huizinga/Caillois, D.W. Winnicott brings in a more psychoanalytic/developmental framework for play: the liminality of transitional phenomena (à la Sherry Turkle).

I think people Say work with the data more often then play with the data. A lot of people have lost the concept of what the word play entails in relation to visual thinking when performing work tasks. Is there a connection with visualizations and the interest of the subject that makes it easier to “play with the data” or is it just the sheer visual perception that does?

But it’s play whenever you start looking into a large data set for relationships, isn’t it? Do people say “play with the data” or “work with the data” more often?