Do you feel that that definition is suitably precise to encompass ALL art, everything I feel could be considered art and, should I refer back to previous counter-arguments that you have made, that it would meet any and all criteria you have applied to others - with any failure to meet EVERY one of them a complete invalidation of the definition?
I wouldn’t want to be hasty in my assessment of it
I am quite sure that there are definitions of love that are wrong. Some of them give rise to abusive marriages, abused children, and even despotic religions.
What is a game?
Chess is a game. We will agree on that.
Is roleplaying a game? Not an RPG, but simply playing a role for fun.
Is counting to 10 a game? No input from the player specifically, but you are attempting to achieve a goal.
I’m not very good at emoji, but I’m wondering if that last sentence could plausibly have a smiley.
I wouldn’t want to say that everything you feel could be considered art has to fall under that definition. If there is an objective criterion for what is art (which I do believe, but I don’t assume that you do), then your feelings about what is art might be mistaken.
I’m not prepared to essay a formal definition of “game”: I haven’t thought about it enough.
However: Is Calvinball a game? For a long time this might have been considered doubtful; its rules mutated too much and too freely. But the very last time it was played, Rosalyn the babysitter figured it out and won against Calvin, fair and square, and he acknowledged it and was happy I think at that point it clearly WAS a game.
Wrong, in each of those cases, is subjective and both societally and culturally informed. Can harmful consequences result from various definitions? Yes. And again, harm in this case is also culturally and societally informed. Plenty of people would tell others that BDSM, polyamory, or open relationships are wrong. But in my work I engage with people who practice all of those without any harm being done. Others would assert vigorously that isn’t true.
But you have again focused on one element allowing you to be “right” instead of engaging the actual question.
Additionally, the idea that anyone’s feelings can be “mistaken” is dismissive in the most insulting way and let’s me know that I’m done with this back and forth.
“I’m not prepared to essay a formal definition of “game”: I haven’t thought about it enough.”
But you believe you are prepared to offer a formal definition of something literally nobody else is thousands of years has been able to?
I think what you’ve done here is hijacked a thread in order to spout an opinion as fact. Nobody here is discussing the original topic at all, we’re all just arguing with you. That’s not okay, really.
Agreed. Apologies to Benkyo. The article is great and it’s a great topic for discussion.
If you’re going to argue that way, you can invalidate any attempt anyone might make to define anything whatever, by saying, “Who are you do presume to define what other people can’t?” And in that case no one can ever define anything. I reject any argument that so sweepingly invalidates the human mind.
If you think there is something wrong with my definition, if you think that it excludes some things that clearly are art or includes some things that clearly are not art, then say so. I’m not infallible; I may be wrong. But if all you have is “Maybe you’re wrong” and “Who do you think you are anyway?” then I give both of those zero weight.
People have told you you’re wrong, and you’re ignoring them and saying you are in fact qualified to make this decision.
And to reiterate; you (a moderator) is continuing to derail this discussion from its original purpose.
Well, so stop. I didn’t set out to have this huge messy discussion; I thought I was making a simple, straightforward comment referring back to the original thread from which this thread sprang. And then I found you and lots of other people arguing with me. . . .
You (a moderator) have decided that instead of telling you that art is subjective, other posters should in fact just either not post or ignore what you have said.
I never asked to be a moderator in the first place; and if being a moderator means I am not allowed to state my own views on anything, then I repudiate it.
And you don’t seem to be doing very well at ceasing to contribute to the derailment of the original thread, for which I do apologize to Benkyo.
I have no intention of trying to invalidate your very good attempt at a definition. As much as I could say that the “hello boys” wonderbra advert was intended to stimulate awareness of aesthetic merit - yet wouldn’t really be considered art then throw it all out, it would just be cheeky.
The point I was making is that you appointed yourself judge and jury for this idea of defining art here when people weren’t considering themselves on trial - or if they were, weren’t aware of the guidelines and framework of rules you had decided to apply to either pass or entirely demerit.
Below we have the approximate, generalised wording I had suggested, really as an attempt to move the conversation on and back to the actual topic of this thread, without feeling it was going to be judged and picked apart against unspecified criteria; and we have your formalised definition that you wrote in full knowledge of what you would apply.
There really isn’t much difference in them. The only significant difference is that I didn’t specify that the conceptual work had the express primary purpose of aesthetic appreciation and the accompanying emotional response.
Your response was essentially that other things are pretty too unintentionally so that definition’s no good.
A lot of bickering and frustration could have been avoided by simply framing it as, ‘close but no cigar’ I feel this is too open, but with a little editing by specifying the primary purpose it’s pretty much good
I enjoyed this thread to start with. Now it seems to have turned into Facebook 
Oh, nonsense.
If I ask you what is six times nine, and you say “forty-two,” you are mistaken no matter how strongly you feel that that’s the right answer.
And my initial condition was, “If there is an objective criterion for what is art” (and note that I explicitly acknowledged that Shakyjk might not believe that) then someone’s feelings about it might be wrong. That’s perfectly parallel to saying that someone’s feelings about arithmetic might be wrong (arithmetic being quite objective). It seems to me that you are so intensely rejecting my initial supposition that you are not even able to entertain it as a hypothesis and consider what follows from it; you do not even acknowledge that I presented it as a hypothetical. I’m sorry, but that seems pretty dogmatic to me.
Could a mod excise the definition derail(s) and make them a new thread please?
I do think that aesthetic appreciation being the primary purpose is vital. But I hadn’t quite pinned that down to where I could state it.
I did leave out the “conceptual work” part, but that probably should be included. Ayn Rand’s definition, “The selective re-creation of reality in accordance with the artist’s metaphysical value judgments,” certainly seems to require a conceptual element. On the other hand, I’m not quite sure in what sense instrumental music is conceptual (and I find Rand’s discussion of instrumental music unsatisfying—as, I should acknowledge, she did as well).
I’m sorry to have presented this in such a way as to provoke you. Your approach to this whole subject has been singularly helpful. I don’t suppose it’s any help if I say that “I think that’s an inadequate definition” was not an attack on you, but a response to a specific proposal of yours in what I take to be a common endeavor to better grasp the concept of art?
Let me say that I have no objection to that. I was initially focused on your statement that you were returning to the previous thread; I brought up something I had wanted to say on that thread. It seemed odd to me that this was coming up now under “board games,” but I didn’t think that was your central topic. My mistake.
I don’t myself have any idea how to do any of that moderatorial stuff, or I would oblige you.