If you could separate one work from its creator, what would it be?
- Thread starter polymath
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is exactly what I thought when I saw this thread. Varg is a horrible human being, but I'll be damned if he doesn't write some fantastic music.Nigh Invulnerable said:
Other than Ender's Game (for reasons already mentioned by yourself) maybe Bioware from Dragon Age II? as a mulligan, of course. It wasn't bad, really, but it is my least-favorite of the Bioware games I've played. Let's just say Obsidian made it. I feel like I should have a way better answer, but I can't think of it.
If I were you, I'd take that bit about piracy out of that post. The mods to not look kindly upon encouraging any sort of illegal behavior on the boards, including piracy.Mick P. said:
And I do not have any sort of obligation to view or experience any kind of art, and I say that as an artist myself. Disagreeing with a person's personal views is never a legitimate excuse to bypass the legal trade system to enjoy their "art." That's just another lazy excuse for not buying something. I went to school with many artists who I disagreed with on many things, from political issues to lifestyle choices. But if I were to visit their gallery, I'd pay the fee like everybody else. And if those disagreements make even visiting their gallery unappetizing to me, then I won't go, and I won't try to find a way around.
You are not entitled to be able to view or have anyone else's art just because it's art. That's like saying I'm entitled to have a Chick Fil A sandwich regardless of whether or not I want to pay money that contributes to homophobic organizations. I do think there are a few gray areas in this issue, like the way some games can only survive for future generations via emulations, because the current industry is rolling up behind itself and threatening to roll up the history of video games with it. But this is not one of those gray areas.
If an artist wants people to steal their book, then fine, let them. But that doesn't automatically make it okay to steal everyone else's. That's like demanding samples from all ice cream shops just because you once went to one that does. You are only entitled to what the artist offers. If an artist has a gallery with a fee, or a minimum donation to download a song or album, or only offers watermarked proofs of their work on their web site and asks that you purchase for full prints, then the only thing you're entitled to have. Period.Mick P. said:
And what exactly would Jim and Bob be shameful of? We've had plenty of discussions of the values of emulation in preserving the history of games. You're just not allowed to go around saying "HEY GUYS, DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR A GAME? PIRATE IT!" Because there's no discussion value there.
Doug TenNapel and Earthworm Jim.
Absolute favorite game/franchise as a child, but now it's hard to enjoy knowing some of the shit hes said.
Absolute favorite game/franchise as a child, but now it's hard to enjoy knowing some of the shit hes said.
I already seperate artists from their work.
As soon as they're done making it, it's mine to enjoy. I don't care what they have to say about it or anything else in general.
There are exceptions, but if I have to disregard one piece of media on the grounds of the artist having a conflicting opinion I have to disregard all of them, and I'll never be able to enjoy a single thing for the rest of my life.
As soon as they're done making it, it's mine to enjoy. I don't care what they have to say about it or anything else in general.
There are exceptions, but if I have to disregard one piece of media on the grounds of the artist having a conflicting opinion I have to disregard all of them, and I'll never be able to enjoy a single thing for the rest of my life.
Watchmen, perhaps? Brilliant writing, great use of symbolism, the whole thing felt like a visual poem. The writer, however, seems a little... eccentric? I don't like some of his other work either. I read about a book called Lost Girls on Wikipedia, which he wrote, and it sounded demented. It doesn't help that he looks like an ax murderer. The more I read about Alan Moore, the more I think I wouldn't like him (though he's a great writer).
The thing I hate the most about him is that he's a hypocrite. He gets angry when people use his characters in other comics, or when people adapt his work to film, but he did the same thing to other writers! He took characters from classic literature and used them in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, adapting literature to a graphic format, and yet he has the nerve to get angry when someone does the same to him? I still enjoy his work, but the man frustrates me.
The thing I hate the most about him is that he's a hypocrite. He gets angry when people use his characters in other comics, or when people adapt his work to film, but he did the same thing to other writers! He took characters from classic literature and used them in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, adapting literature to a graphic format, and yet he has the nerve to get angry when someone does the same to him? I still enjoy his work, but the man frustrates me.
You do realize that "thoughts out of a person's head" are NOT what line gallery walls and fill music albums, right? They may have started as ideas, but to make the product that you consume as a viewer, player, or listener required hours upon hours of work, as well as equipment, materials, and in many cases education on how to produce such works. An artist isn't a person who produces ideas, an artist is a person who produces works. A person who spends 500 hours producing an extensive music album or series of paintings deserves compensation for their work, just as much as a person who spends 500 hours producing a furniture set or designing a car.Mick P. said:
And of course you would go into that "if you're a real artist you'll do it for free" thing. What a crock of shit. You clearly have no idea how the business of art works. Do you even know how galleries work? Do you know how commissions work? Being an artist is a profession. The materials to make art of any discipline at a professional grade can cost thousands, not to mention the hundreds and thousands of hours poured into it over time. Why is it a person who makes handmade furniture for a living deemed worthy of compensation, but when a person makes paintings for a living suddenly they're expected to do it for free? What's the difference? They're spending hundreds of hours in labor and up to thousands of dollars in materials to make a luxury product used at least in part as decoration.
Again, you aren't entitled to ANYTHING. If you go to school to be an artist, they'll teach you not only how to make your art, but how to market it and accurately price it. Trust me--I took one of those classes. Art can be and often is made for free. But a person who makes their livelihood art deserves to get paid for what they put out. If a person started just making handmade furniture for shiggles and gave it away to people, that would not suddenly make you entitled to any and all handmade furniture that is made by other individuals.
Make that a triple wish just to be sure!Zipa said:
As for my own suggestion: Richard Dawkins.
His earlier books are really good and raise interesting ideas, the God Delusion is well constructed albeit aggressive, but more recently all he seems to do is go shock-jocking on twitter.
I'm a pretty hardcore atheist, but he's getting a bit boring frankly.
I never played or watched Earthworm Jim, but I've read four of TenNapel's graphic novels. What's he said?SomeGuyOnHisComputer said:
I read Lost Girls. Or to be more precise, I read half of Lost Girls before I gave up. I don't like porn in general, and this one wasn't that good. To be honest, IMO Alan Moore isn't as good as he used to be. I can't think of a single really good comic he's made the last six years or so, and I absolutely love the stuff he made before then.Fox12 said:
And in case you don't reply to this, there are two more things I want to make sure you understand. First, that Jim Sterling and Yahtzee and Moviebob aren't just "hosted" on the Escapist. They are paid by the Escapist for their content. They may have been producing their content for free before they went to the Escapist, but the Escapist was willing to host them and give them money for it, so they signed on. It costs time and money to do what they do, and they get paid to do it. They don't just make their videos because they love to--they do love to do it, they've just found a way to make money off of it as well. Just like all other professional artists.Mick P. said:
Secondly, even people who make music spend a LOT of money to do so. Instruments cost hundreds of dollars each, and cost hundreds over time to maintain. Music lessons cost hundreds if not thousands over time. Formal education on the fundamentals of music costs thousands. Recording equipment costs hundreds, as well as renting sound stages. Mixing software and equipment costs hundreds. And then there's the labor and efforts of other musicians and technicians you team up with, and the labor you yourself put into it. Someone who dedicates their life to this deserves to be paid for all it took to produce their work. Just because they made the mistake of being a musician post-Internet doesn't mean they're obligated to relinquish their work to the masses.
I guess that's why I'm getting so frustrated with you. You seem to have no idea exactly how expensive it is to make art. Just because distribution has gotten cheaper doesn't mean production has. The very fact that you think because images and songs can be transferred over the Internet automatically means "there's no reason it can't be done for free!" shows that you are completely ignorant of what goes into producing professional art and music, and perhaps a bit entitled because you just assume people just have this equipment and software on hand, or that because they're artists they're just willing to make the "sacrifice." Professional artists ask for payment for their work because it's what they do. The time most people spend on full-time jobs they spend on their work. It is their job. Being a professional artist isn't all sunshine and ideas and altruism. It is a business. Ask any gallery owner or artist who puts their work in galleries. They'll tell you the same.
Ender's Game, so that people would quit whining about how they're not going to go see an EXCELLENT BOOK MADE INTO A MOVIE just because the author is kind of a dick. Seriously, give the non-Card folks on the movie your money. Do it. Don't stiff them because you don't like Card. (Anyway, I don't give a crap, the guy's personal views and my liking of his writing are two entirely different things. Separate your life areas, guys.)
The new Star Wars Trilogy, so that George Lucas wouldn't get so much shit. The guy doesn't deserve such rage. He doesn't owe you people anything, and he's a real human being, so *be nice.*
The new Star Wars Trilogy, so that George Lucas wouldn't get so much shit. The guy doesn't deserve such rage. He doesn't owe you people anything, and he's a real human being, so *be nice.*
"Art supplies?" Seriously? Have you ever BOUGHT professional grade art supplies before? Oil paints can cost upwards of $10 per tube, and dozens of tubes can be used in a single painting, depending on the size and the thickness the paint is applied. As for "separating art from commerce," I'll refer you to the post I made just before you made this one. You are completely ignorant of how professional art works. Have you ever even been to a gallery before? I'm sorry if this sounds very elitist, but you really seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Art is a HUGE business. The existence of things like DeviantArt and YouTube haven't changed that. If anything, there are more galleries where I live now than there were 20 years ago. Seriously, before you go any further, talk to a professional artist or gallery owner. Learn about this, you're really just talking out your ass at this point.Mick P. said:
You have to separate hobbyists from professional artists. There are people who have the money to make art for fun, just as there are people who have the money to make custom cars or fine furniture for fun. But, there are also people who make custom cars and fine furniture to get paid. Unless you're going to tell me every single hobbyist who makes stuff for fun automatically invalidates anyone who might want to get paid for producing such works, your logic doesn't hold up.
For me it would be Earthworm Jim, I just can't enjoy as much knowing certain views that TenNapel has.
Earthworm Jim creator...no friend to gay people? [http://www.destructoid.com/earthworm-jim-creator-no-friend-to-gay-people--202271.phtml]
Well to sum it up, TenNapel made some unflattering comments about gay people, among other things as well, here's a link for the full storyQueen Michael said:
Earthworm Jim creator...no friend to gay people? [http://www.destructoid.com/earthworm-jim-creator-no-friend-to-gay-people--202271.phtml]
I wish I could bring myself to ever deliberately see another Roman Polanski film without reminding myself that he is a rapist and a fugitive.
LOL. And there it is. Kiddo, maybe you can get away with using freeware and synthesized instruments when making some cool beats to post on Facebook or YouTube, but professional musicians still use real instruments and sound studios just like everyone else. Everything from bands to solo artists use real instruments. They may in some cases use pre-packaged instrument software, but they still know to use the real thing, just as the person who knows how to use a digital drawing tablet knows how to draw on paper. Maybe you can get away with the pre-packaged instruments in Audacity and Garage Band, but professional musicians still make and mix their music just like they always have. With real instruments, recording studios, and PROFESSIONAL grade mixing equipment.Mick P. said:
And by the way, no, that isn't "free." Your entitlement is showing again here. Computers cost money. Keyboard attachments cost money. Digital drawing tablets cost A LOT OF money. Software to create and mix costs money. And no, you can't just pirate that either. When you're a professional you need to own those programs. Pirating the Adobe suite to make pretty DeviantArt pictures may be okay in your book, but if you're going to be making music for clients then that shit better be legit, or else nobody will touch you or your work again because you're profiting from stolen goods. To the law, it's no different from building a house with a stolen hammer.
As for the rest, I don't know where you ever got the idea I was saying artists deserve to get paid for "creating." If you go to a gallery, you should pay. If you like a sample of a song on Bandcamp, you should pay to buy it for yourself. But if somebody makes an oil painting and then never sells it, then no, they don't deserve money. I'm talking about a simple exchange of money for goods and services. Whether the good or service is a song or time in a gallery, money should be exchanged.
This will be my last post to you on this subject, since you seem to be determined to proceed with your current ideas even though you really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's the thing: You may not think that art is a business, but it is. You can go on your merry way thinking that the only "real artists" are the one with the disposable income to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours without asking for payment, and just throw out their work from the rooftops or something, but in the meantime there are more than a dozen galleries in my city who are hosting hundreds of artists on a regular basis. These galleries charge a small fee to come in, and then viewers are given opportunities to make extra donations directly to the artists themselves.
And at the same time, there are tens of thousands of professional artists around the work, making art and selling them in various situation. There are people in DeviantArt who charge money to give people high-res copies and prints of their works. There are hundreds of artists on web sites like Bandcamp.com who publish them and their bands works online, asking for a minimum donation to download. There are painters and sketch artists working on commission, charging per-hour for however long it takes to complete the work plus the cost of supplies[footnote]Which is the universally accepted method of charging for professional commission work.[/footnote] There are architects designing buildings, there are graphic designers laying out magazines, there are craftsmen making fine furniture and vases and houses and barns. There are bands going on tours and doing gigs in random pubs and bars. There are comic-book artists drawing, writing, laying out, inking, and printing. There are novelists writing books and short stories and either seeking major publishers, or self-publishing on Amazon and the iBookstore. There are potters throwing clay on the wheel, jewelers cutting diamonds, and metallurgists pounding out everything from letter openers to fine copper bowls. And then there are the thousands upon thousands of people peddling their trinkets on streets and at random craft festivals.
While you're stuck in your head thinking that art is all fluffy and thrives on disposable income, the rest of the world will be participating in the multi-billion dollar industry that is the exchange of money for creative and created goods. You can join, if you like.
Not the creator as such, but someone behind its production - EA and both the Dead Space and Mass Effect series. Seriously, Mass Effect 2 and Dead Space 2 were great (the latter becoming more disturbing than scary, granted, but the former is my 2nd favourite game of all time), but the final games in the trilogies were hindered greatly by EA's meddling in the developers' affairs. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is what I am blaming for the lack of a fulfilling ending (which was fulfilled months later by a plot-hole fixing update), and Dead Space 3 will need a paragraph to explain why.
Dead Space 3 could have been great, but unfortunately, it was not to be. It was the deformed child of greed and ambitious corporate suits who wanted faster cars, a child that could have had a better life had its parent not smoked money during its gestation. It was fun, don't get me wrong, but the child was a Chinese one to two American parents - it wasn't their child, like it wasn't a Dead Space game. The combat was improved, but included a combat roll that was completely unnecessary. Its story was intriguing on paper, but towards the end it was dragged out and had the love triangle that was, like the combat roll, unnecessary and added an extra QTE to the story and that's it. It had microtransactions forced upon us to tempt us from feeling like we had fought hard for a new upgrade for our plasma cutter, which in turn kinda ruined the whole weapons upgrade component. And then co-operative play was introduced, which was the biggest kick in the arse for me as nobody else on my Xbox's friends list owned the game, and my experiences of playing co-op games with strangers hasn't been peachy to say the very least. Dead Space 3 should have been a horror game to make all the sceptics following Dead Space 2's release see why the franchise was important in today's gaming circle. Instead, the series will be looked at with a critical eye and seen as one with a lot of potential marred by corporate greed, and that upsets me greatly.
George Lucas should have been taken away from the Star Wars prequels. Or, at least, should have been told by Fox that if he ignored his advisers then they would make sure the films never saw the light of day. I cannot forgive the man for the travesty that was Attack of the Clones (but Jango Fett and Count Dooku were pretty cool).
Dead Space 3 could have been great, but unfortunately, it was not to be. It was the deformed child of greed and ambitious corporate suits who wanted faster cars, a child that could have had a better life had its parent not smoked money during its gestation. It was fun, don't get me wrong, but the child was a Chinese one to two American parents - it wasn't their child, like it wasn't a Dead Space game. The combat was improved, but included a combat roll that was completely unnecessary. Its story was intriguing on paper, but towards the end it was dragged out and had the love triangle that was, like the combat roll, unnecessary and added an extra QTE to the story and that's it. It had microtransactions forced upon us to tempt us from feeling like we had fought hard for a new upgrade for our plasma cutter, which in turn kinda ruined the whole weapons upgrade component. And then co-operative play was introduced, which was the biggest kick in the arse for me as nobody else on my Xbox's friends list owned the game, and my experiences of playing co-op games with strangers hasn't been peachy to say the very least. Dead Space 3 should have been a horror game to make all the sceptics following Dead Space 2's release see why the franchise was important in today's gaming circle. Instead, the series will be looked at with a critical eye and seen as one with a lot of potential marred by corporate greed, and that upsets me greatly.
George Lucas should have been taken away from the Star Wars prequels. Or, at least, should have been told by Fox that if he ignored his advisers then they would make sure the films never saw the light of day. I cannot forgive the man for the travesty that was Attack of the Clones (but Jango Fett and Count Dooku were pretty cool).