The Penacho Code's game The Value of Art examines questions of vaue in the market for art. One part of our game is economics, another is how to talk about the always-polemic topic of commercial markets. This essay examines this second question of presentation and discussion, within the context of games as art.
Games can be on, around and in Art.
Games on and around Art. Theory as games using art, for games. E.g., Masterpiece.
Games in Art Theory as using games in art, for art. This is the aspect we address here.
There is a taboo or unwritten rule that art has to be serious. Hence the use of gaming has to be explained or justified. If it is not explained, the result is likely viewed as "only entertainment" and dismissed for its art value.
"This was not Cabaret, this was a great performance." Rocio.Initially, we started out with a traditional art context of the gallery as performance and installation venue. This however raised intractible issues with respect to our context of an exploration of the value of art. Rejection of art/gallery context and selection of the game concept led to search for new venue, which crystallised as Caberet (5o Festival Internacional de Cabaret, El Vicio, Mexico City).
A goal of art might be to change people's minds as to what they think, perceive, realise, love and hate. Yet, this goal is commonplace, inside and outside art, we face tough competition. Presenting the message isn't sufficient for the today's audience, they shrug their shoulders as if the 100th Picasso is like the first. This section outlines the motives behind our strategy of selecting the game context to reach this goal.
We draw on two traditions on involving the audience: that from art and that from games. We break the traditional attitude of passive entertainment, the clown in front of the audience, and draw the audience into the game. First, as clowns like us, then, we re-make them into artists.
Changing the passive role into an active one allows us to communicate at a different level. Presenting the theory as a live, active experience is clearly better. The experience is different when it is live, immediate, interactive.
Perhaps beyond, or perhaps related to the clarity of the explanation, if our audience participates, they enter a more open state of mind. Only in a moment of openness are you willing to see something new, think something new, and, indeed, challenge your own beliefs.
Games go even further in opening the state of mind. "It's a game, it's a game, it's not important!" Because it is "not important," the audience is relaxed, prepared to enjoy themselves rather than play their educated, stereotyped roles of critic, theoritician, colelctor, artist, etc.
Finally, this unimportance in a game setting gives us one final protection: safety of the children's sandpit in an otherwise aggressive world.
As well as being easy and efficacious for us, it is "safe" for the audience as well. If an invited critic of some note where to make a mistake that would be in other contexts damaging, in our game it can do no damage. The defence of "just a game" protects them, not only by refusing to recognise any gravity in any responses, but also by inviting them to try out new strategies, new ideas, new attitudes.
We learn if we make mistakes, indeed, we can only learn if we make mistakes, as to make no mistake is to use that which we already know. The game then presents a win-win environment for all of us.
We live in a world of zero-tolerance to mistakes. This ideology ... this taboo zone ... a mistake leads to a perception of failure, a fear of failure, and this inhibits open thought. The game for us opens a world where the normal rules of zero-tolerance to mistakes are suspended.
Hence, the game becomes a possibility/mechanism/strategy to open the minds of our audience even before the message is presented. Preparing the minds to see life differently, the topic can then be presented. Yet, we have to take things at their natural speed; everyone has to have the feeling that they discover things on their own.
The game first relaxes the defenses of the audience, and introduces them as active players. Then it enters issues of art market into the consciousness of the players. As the game proceeds, these issue rise from mere consciousness to active awareness.
Why do artists use the resource of gaming to say something? In our case, by using the game as a parody of art, we bridge the gap from theory to practice. As the audience are relaxed, their state of mind is receptive.
As the audience is enjoying themselves, we do not fail if they disagree, or they fail to get the message, instead, we simply entertain. Indeed, it is "safe" for them as well, we want our audience to be daring, to challenge the stereotypes, ours and theirs. In the sandpit of our game lies a wonderful reward: the chance to make mistakes, to learn from them, and to reach a better understanding. Is it their error, our error, or the shared failure of all of art? Who cares? What we care about is moving beyond any failure, and it is this that motivates us in the game of value.