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

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Mick P. said:
No offense, but this can all be filed under art supplies. It isn't a crock of shit. I work full time for free. Art is a luxury. If I was paid for all of the work I do for free, for my fellow man, it would be millions of dollars. Most artists are just happy to be making art. Again you gotta divorce the commerce from the art.
"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.

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.
 

Kitsune Hunter

What a beautiful Duwang!
Dec 18, 2011
1,072
0
0
For me it would be Earthworm Jim, I just can't enjoy as much knowing certain views that TenNapel has.

Queen Michael said:
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?
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 story

Earthworm Jim creator...no friend to gay people? [http://www.destructoid.com/earthworm-jim-creator-no-friend-to-gay-people--202271.phtml]
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Mick P. said:
A professional actor runs millions of dollars. Art supplies.
So are you saying they deserve to get paid even though hobbyists exist, or aren't you? Answer my question.
 

Ryan Ambrose

New member
Jun 19, 2013
10
0
0
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.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Mick P. said:
When we are talking about art, the art supplies are paid for, if they are not free: there are so man free digital alternatives nowadays.
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.

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.
 

V TheSystem V

New member
Sep 11, 2009
996
0
0
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).