Just bumped into c acangel’s blurb on art in the whitney‘s website..
Many interesting elements he mentioned. In general, perhaps, its interesting how a bright mind can produce clear statements at times. Very communicative, able to phrase an idea in a way that isn’t just shared,like “here you go, this is what i think”, which I do – but place the idea instantly within the common cultural sphere.
The thing is that am not sure whether or not the idea are so well chewed up that they are “there” already – hence what is required is just a re-utterance. Or is it, as I hope, a genuine ability to commune.
In any case, since the ideas were placed so clearly, it kind of made the Game notion linger longer in my mind. (had to be phrased like that??) Well, there is the beat/element that he will say “game” because he is using games and that kind of makes the conceptual material to be art, or instantly reflective of art.
However, we also have the notion of art as a game, a play between/among all its participants. eg curators, users, audiences, markets, materials, galleries, etc.. In that sense am wondering a few sequences:
* art as a game might be a game in itself – which it is – that could have its time well past by now?
For example, the idea of Redefinition, a constant redefinition, can be both the game, and the requirement for going out of the game paradigm – because maybe art as a practice has its own way, own characteristics that might not require a metaphor or an analogy?
eg, is cooking a game? yes, it could be Seen as such. However, game does not Define cooking. Is driving a game? Yes, we can think of driving as a game – but it can live without that perception. Hence not defined by the game analogy. OK.. How about science? Yes, we can game science too – however the scientific process of enquiry is not a game of specific rules to gain more points over the other participants. The process and the practice of science might include gaming between people that goes in all sorts of other practices, however, that game does not define science and its enquiries.
Now, does art, the artistic process – which might require some sort of a better perception some time – requires game, or a gaming process – to be art?
* the other game and art linked question, i think is the meta sequence of if game gaming game. From a game perspective, perhaps we can ask whether the game can be that of non-gaming. ie of not playing the game, the rules, the process, and then allowing others to make up the rules in hindsight – hence to bring the game onto the art, as a part of an ongoing sequence. Frem this perspective, the being of a game in art is a sequential rather than a defining element. Sequential in the sense of time of stuff-undefined and time of rules absorption – each required one another to be a sequence, at least some, might define as, errr, art..
* The other, and perhaps the last element in this entry is the question of Definition. If we define X, do we not by default place certain rules upon it, and then, by having these rules, make the definition – whatever it is – amenable for a game interpretation?
ie, it might be that traditionally we define art in various ways, and it might also be the case that we can and maybe ought to – ditch that tradition as well?
How?
If art evolution?
Or maybe if art we know not today, but could in a long while from now?