>> Richard's work doesn't exist for any reason other than itself, not
>> to market a product (like a game boy) or sell toys or even promote
>> Richard himself (as far as I can tell; his professional portfolio is
>> somewhere else on the site). Gameboy products have a lot of art
>> going into them, in many senses of the word, but they are there only
>> to make money.
>So, if Richard were commissioned to create a work, it would cease to
> Nick Rothwell Cassiel.com Limited
> email@example.com www.cassiel.com
> systems - composition - installation - performance
Not at all. If he were commissioned to create a dance, that's what it would
be. Especially if it were commissioned simply to be a dance, such as (I
imagine) Biped was. Art has a long history of being commissioned, the
present state-of-the-arts notwithstanding. However, when they are
"commissioned" to create something--dance, image, whatever--in order to sell
something else, I would call that advertising, not art. Nothing wrong with
it--but it's what, in my mind, separates Richard's work from the Gameboy,
which was the question I was answering.
Of course, I would never presume to define any art form for anyone else.
This is simply how I keep it straight in my own head. Primarily, for me,
it's a motivation and order of precedence sort of thing. In other words, if
Richard creates a dance in the hopes that a lot of people will buy it and
give him lots of money, that is perhaps less "artistic" than if
Creativ-Capital comes and asks him to build an interactive dance. Purely my
own opinion, but hey, we starving artists have to get by on pride, since the
funds aren't there.