[...] Raph’s Website > But is it art?…’s the game, High Delivery, one of Ferry Halim’s games over at Orisinal. http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/02/16/but-is-it-art... – Āīńńņąķīāčņü ņåźńņ – http://www.raphkoster.com [...]

[...] 1: Play the game Step 2: Read what smart people say about [...]

[...] of their art and music combinations as opposed to anything the game does (though Raph Koster has written extensively about High [...]

Using language that accurately and effectively conveys meaning is hardly a waste of time.

Thanks, I know what language is. The word “art”, in this context, doesn’t accurately and effectively convey meaning. Because it’s too subjective. Because we don’t know what the other person means when they say it. Some words such as the word “5″ are very easily shared as a concept to others. Some things such as “love” or “justice” or “art” are obviously far more subjective in we lack a common understanding of what they entail.

So what we end up doing is we talk about other things. The things I think are artful and the things you think are artful. Things that we both do share a good understanding of. We use words like “mood” and “theme” and “analogy” and “music” and many other things that DO convey something accurately and meaningful.

And then, when we’re done, if we agree on all the details, it hardly matters if we put the label “art” on it or not. If two people love each other, for example, does it really matter if they don’t ever call it love? Is the label art somehow imbuing something onto objects that wasn’t there before? And if it isn’t, doesn’t what is really there matter far more than the label?

So the question becomes, who defines those lines?

History. Glancing through art history, most art is representational art, or noninteractive models of perceptions of reality.

The point being, that because itā€™s subjective, those lines are defined differently be different people.

Which is exactly why getting hung up on one word/label can be a waste of time.

To us, everything is inherently subjective as what we call reality is what we individually perceive as reality. Perceptions of the world differ from one person to the next. What you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is what you get, but what others see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is not the same. Language is a component of human interaction. We use language to communicate meaning to other people in order to make sense of the world together. Using language that accurately and effectively conveys meaning is hardly a waste of time. The real problem is using language in a way that persuades people to our particular point of view, a task made difficult by the variability of language and meaning.

In Generating Buy-In: Mastering the Language of Leadership, author Mark Walton writes, "We ‘think’ in stories. Stories, filled with pictures—images of life—are literally the language, the currency of our minds." I think he has a point. That’s why I say history defines those lines because history is filled with stories that we can retrospectively analyze to discover the appropriate meaning to attach to the word "art". On the other hand, I don’t think we need to define "art" in order to define "game".

The point being, that because itā€™s subjective, those lines are defined differently be different people.

Which is exactly why getting hung up on one word/label can be a waste of time.

Well, Grim, would you describe the incidents at Abu-Ghraib as ā€œabuseā€ and ā€œmistreatmentā€ or as ā€œtortureā€? The sentiment is the same. We should recognize art as art, games as games, and music as music, instead of collectively devaluing these objects of meaning and the experiences they influence by commingling these separate and unique concepts under a generic and vague umbrella term for everything that inspires people to think.

So the question becomes, who defines those lines? You? Me? Some governing body? The point being, that because it’s subjective, those lines are defined differently be different people.

That said, the entire conversation feels like masturbation to me.

It’s fun to get philosophical, but at the end of the day art is subjective and there’s no way to convince everyone that some external thing is art. The decision lies in the eye of the beholder. I’d rather see busy minds discover art in their own lens and then strike out to create more art as they see it. Better than trying to convince others that it can/is/should be art.