[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.