If you could separate one work from its creator, what would it be?

tardcore

New member
Jan 15, 2011
103
0
0
Boy I'm sure not winning any friends this week in the hypothetical question thread department.

Ok, I outright refuse to participate in this pretentious and self serving bit of mind wank.

The reason being is if you divorce an intellectual property from its creator, even if you are only doing so in the confines of your own mind, I feel you are guilty of criminally stealing another individuals ideas for your own personal gain.

Human beings are quite complex creatures with many attractors and detractors. If you cannot accept the fact that sometimes individuals with quite extreme differences in personal philosophy can sometimes find common ground, then you are the ones who are flawed.

Asking those of us to like an intellectual property regardless of its creator's origin is just as wrong for example, as Orson Scott Card asking for us to judge Ender's Game only on its own merits as a story rather than to factor in it's own creator's view of the world we inhabit, and just who will benefit from our financial patronage of his ideas.
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
I dunno.
I mean, I guess I'd like to try Fez legitimately without giving Phil Fish any money because fuck that guy but other than that I can't think of anything.
 

ohnoitsabear

New member
Feb 15, 2011
1,236
0
0
Nigh Invulnerable said:
Hmmm....I'd have a hard time with this. I'd separate the works of Burzum from Varg Vikernes. The man's a convicted murderer, white supremacist, and lunatic, but he writes some really neat dark black metal (and basically created the format in the modern generation of it.
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.
 

Cretgren

New member
Mar 26, 2009
17
0
0
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.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Mick P. said:
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.

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.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Mick P. said:
Many artists have titled their work, Steal this Book. If art is art is wants to be part of the culture. If it doesn't it's debatable whether or not it is even art. If you are not going to pay for something on ethical grounds. It should matter even less that theft is not intrinsically unethical. These forums have a lot of ethical clouds hovering over them policies wise. If I were Yahtzee or Jim/Bob I would be kind of embarrassed by the policies. Maybe looking for a new home.
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.

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.
 
Jun 20, 2013
112
0
0
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.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
17,915
2,296
118
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.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
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.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Mick P. said:
If Jim and Bob are the paragons of virtues and half as witty as they their public personae then they would understand why the policies of these forums are such an affront to the cream of the ethically inclined crop.

It's true if you "steal" a physical piece of hardware. That's quite different from the thought crime of having an idea shoot through your conscious. But just like a starving child can be impoverished, you can be impoverished of culture too. Shall we cut the kids hands off for eating that apple they could not afford? These are very basic ethical dilemmas.

All of the things we do to keep people segregated from the culture are artificial. Right now if you have a digital work of art. If you want people to see it make it available to them. There's no reason that can't be done for free. And let those that fortune has smiled upon donate money to the artist. If you want to do things differently, its a mode of extortion. And the artist can deal with the pros and cons of that. We no longer have physical barriers to distribution. That's a good thing.
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.

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.
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
Zipa said:
VulakAerr said:
Zipa said:
Star Wars after the original trilogy aka before ja ja binks.
I already used my wish on this.


You're welcome.
A double wish can't hurt especially with lucas.
Make that a triple wish just to be sure!


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.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
SomeGuyOnHisComputer said:
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.
I never played or watched Earthworm Jim, but I've read four of TenNapel's graphic novels. What's he said?
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Fox12 said:
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.
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.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Mick P. said:
If Jim and Bob are the paragons of virtues and half as witty as they their public personae then they would understand why the policies of these forums are such an affront to the cream of the ethically inclined crop.

It's true if you "steal" a physical piece of hardware. That's quite different from the thought crime of having an idea shoot through your conscious. But just like a starving child can be impoverished, you can be impoverished of culture too. Shall we cut the kids hands off for eating that apple they could not afford? These are very basic ethical dilemmas.

All of the things we do to keep people segregated from the culture are artificial. Right now if you have a digital work of art. If you want people to see it make it available to them. There's no reason that can't be done for free. And let those that fortune has smiled upon donate money to the artist. If you want to do things differently, its a mode of extortion. And the artist can deal with the pros and cons of that. We no longer have physical barriers to distribution. That's a good thing.
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.

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.
 

Aurora Firestorm

New member
May 1, 2008
692
0
0
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.*