Artifex Lumens - is 'artist' a social role, not a job? Reading "Homo Ludens 2.0: Play, Media, and Identity.” from "In Playful Identities: The Ludification of Digital Media Cultures"

 Having discovered the idea of "Homo Ludens", I'm doing some reading on the topic including a chapter entitled "Homo Ludens 2.0: Play, Media, and Identity” from a book called "In Playful Identities: The Ludification of Digital Media Cultures". I also need to read the original "Homo Ludens" book itself, but I'm clearing some of the backlog of impulse-kid-in-a-candy-store downloads I did from JSTOR.

The central proposal of Homo Ludens (as I understand it so far) is that play is a central feature of culture, in fact it's a driving force of culture. In this context 'play' means non-productive 'work' with self-enforced rules. The more I consider Pope.L's work, the more I see the playful aspect - his piece "Pull!" is a great example of a game - it's pointless, it has arbitrary rules, but it also brings people together in a common activity towards a common goal. More and more, I wonder if the purpose of play is actually to teach us cooperation?

I wonder if the role of the artist in society has become corrupted? "High Art" has become about money, and artworks have become assets, valued for their perceived desirability and rarity, not their actual worth to society. In such a world, the asset is worth what people believe it's worth, and therefore a loss of credibility is a loss of money to someone (someone who probably already has more money than they know what to do with). Humour and play become the enemy, the gleaming pin hovering terrifyingly close to the pompously over-inflated balloon of perceived value. 

Likewise, in such an environment, art that does not make people money must be denigrated. Community art brings the dangerous perception that art can become available to anyone, can be a commodity, can (the horror) be made by non-artists, unsanctioned by the gatekeepers of value.

Did art lost it's way when 'artist' became a job title, not a social role, a source of personal enrichment to many? Perhaps the role of the artist is not to 'make art' but rather to 'make art happen'? Is art an act, not an artifact? Is art actually play? The exclusive play of the artist, or the play of some rich elite, or it can be the play of communities. Maybe to be an artist is to be a community leader in social play? Would society as a whole re-engage with art when it become something they were part of, not something to be locked in a gallery with 'do not touch' signs. 

Are the 'artefacts' of art mere mementos of act of art? In playful art we see the 'artefact' as merely the evidence of sacred mischief managed, such as the franked stamps of Michael Hernandez de Luna.

Maybe the true calling of an artist is to be a 'playful spirit'? Using the Jester's Privilege question the unquestionable? To flout the norm? To lead community in play? Maybe high art is art that leads communities in 'games' of serious play, that help them to critically exam the world around them? Of course, in this scenario, the definition of 'artist' become very broad, very open, too dangerously open for some people's comfort?