[arg_discuss] English Gargoyle ARG?

[despain at quantumcontent.com]

I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to understand how
you differentiate between "publicity stunt" and ARG. Couldn't I Love Bees
be considered a publicity stunt? Why not?

I didn't mean to change your words by selective quoting. I just wanted to
keep my message shorter for those who take digest editions of this mailing
list. You did say, "if it did become an arg" but I wasn't clear on what it
would take to move it from the realm of "not arg" to "arg."


> What the hell? No, no, no. "THAT" here refers to stuff like "publicity

> stunt" or "hoax" or "jeans commercial" or whatever - things that are not

> an ARG (or turn into one) but are merely crying for attention. Not "the

> content of the ARG is lame, so therefore it's not an ARG". The sentences

> you didn't paste even say that if it did BECOME an ARG, I'd be happy

> about it:

>

>   > the "artist is a hermit" angle), then it could develop into an ARG,

>   > sure. Am I going to hold my breath? Nope. If it does turn into

>   > an ARG, I'll be pleased (and, man, when 27.com put the UFO drone

>   > stuff as their background image, I was giddy! But that turned lame

>

> Where you got this idea that I'm comparing "coolness of content" with

> "it's just a publicity stunt [et. al] and not an ARG", I have no clue.


Well, you're saying things like "that turned lame" and that sounds to me
like a subjective value judgment. Strawberry ice cream isn't inherently
gross, I just don't happen to like it myself. But I might express that
personal preference by saying "strawberry ice cream is gross" or "that
publicity stunt was lame."

Is it missing puzzles? Narrative? Are those things requirements for being
an ARG? Are you saying you know an ARG when you see it, but you can't
really describe what an ARG is or isn't?

Why are you right, saying the gargoyles are not an ARG? Why am I wrong,
saying that it is?

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com