True or False? GW succeeds in spite of itself...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jeff white**

kodos wrote:
techsoldaten wrote:

Another way of looking at it: the art has become a commodity, produced in the most efficient manner possible. GW has achieved Pulp Grimdark, lacking the deep, immersive setting that distinguished the game from others that attempted the same.

The current style doesn't appeal to me, but it clearly conveys the economics of the situation. Feels like a statement.

yeah, which would mean GW builds on the former glory as the current style does make money but misses the Grimdark that made them famous in the first place

(and the current art being an efficient product, being cheap but also forgettable while people still remember the old stuff)

Agreed.

**BaronIveagh**

macluvin wrote:

But are you saying that you produced art not for the sake of making money?

I think any artist worth the name has done that on occasion. Sometimes it's for money, but sometimes it's because you can't 'not' make something. Sorry if that explanation confuses non-artists.

**Insectum7**

BaronIveagh wrote:
macluvin wrote:

But are you saying that you produced art not for the sake of making money?

I think any artist worth the name has done that on occasion. Sometimes it's for money, but sometimes it's because you can't 'not' make something. Sorry if that explanation confuses non-artists.

As an artist who has been paid for art, yes I have and still make art that is unpaid for. Usually for fun, decoration or experiment . . . Or training/practice too. I don't know of any artist who doesn't.

Sometimes the work that comes out of those excercises winds up being sold, but it's not at all the drive behind the work.

**BaronIveagh**

Insectum7 wrote:
As an artist who has been paid for art, yes I have and still make art that is unpaid for. Usually for fun, decoration or experiment . . . Or training/practice too. I don't know of any artist who doesn't.

Sometimes the work that comes out of those excercises winds up being sold, but it's not at all the drive behind the work.

Some artists do pretend that they only do art for money, but that's more about not having to deal with people who want freebies or 'exposure' pieces.

**kodos**

I usually encounter it the other way, artists claiming that they never to art for money but just what they wanted to do
(with most of them having a different job not need to make a living with their art)

while I never met a full time artist that claimed he does it only for money

**Insectum7**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
As an artist who has been paid for art, yes I have and still make art that is unpaid for. Usually for fun, decoration or experiment . . . Or training/practice too. I don't know of any artist who doesn't.

Sometimes the work that comes out of those excercises winds up being sold, but it's not at all the drive behind the work.

Some artists do pretend that they only do art for money, but that's more about not having to deal with people who want freebies or 'exposure' pieces.

Ok, sure that's definitely a fair strategy. I've certainly had my own conversations regarding that. I make free art for me.

Maybe for someone else if I have a crush on them, but I'm married now so that doesn't happen anymore.