[doodliego]

> a project is either "successful" and meets its funding goal, or "fails" because it doesn't.

This guy works at kickstarter, so his definition of success should be "when backers get what they paid for" not when kickstarter gets paid. This attitude is symptomatic of this company's callous disregard for its own customers and the proliferation of scams and frauds on its service.

[Finnucane]

Wouldn't Kickstarter be in a position to provide the funding he thinks artists should get? Which is to say, Kickstarter could easily set up a system to allow this explicitly. Why not allow artists to ask for this kind of R&D money? As long as it is clear what is being paid for, and what the risks are, and what the money is being used for, why not?

[em-bee]

but his point was that the people funding the kickstarter should not consider an art project failed if it didn't exactly deliver what was promised. of course one can argue that such a statement from a kickstarter employee is somewhat self-serving. but the principle holds.

take a completely different example:

a startup develops software. it gets funded. it fails to make a profit. but the software is complete and released under a FOSS license. it ends up serving many people well.

for the investors that startup was a failure. for the people that benefit from the software it was a success.

this is the point here. an art project may fail, but that doesn't mean it can't still produce a benefit for society. if the latter is the case, maybe it should not be considered a total failure, but a different kind of success.