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.

 Sqorgar wrote:

MDSW wrote:
True to a point, that you do not have any control over what people will think. However, consider the work of a fine artist vs. a commercial artist. A fine artist will create whatever they want and to heck with what people think or like. To contrast, a commercial artist must please his audience and normally has a specific customer to make happy. The vast majority of (if not all) sculptors that are creating stuff to sell are essentially commercial artists, so the consideration and responsibility of creating something that will please people is of prime importance - even if that is a very small, niche group. Albeit, you still can't please everyone...

This is a favorite argument of people who wish for censorship. It's not Art. Art is protected free speech. It's commerce. And commerce answers to the customer. And the customers want this. I ought to know. I'm a customer. So I get to tell artists what to do. The customer is always right, after all. When you think about it, I'm their boss. I'm entitled.

Yes you get to complain like any other customer in any similar situation and they get to decide what they want to do with your criticism (that is if they even know of it). Why would you want to restrict your rights to appease a company that is only after your money?

That's the difference between entertainment art and the art world (as in "capital a" Art), even then you probably have more freedom to create what you want if you depend on neither and create for yourself in your free time. Commerce doesn't just blindly answer to the customer (that's just a strange argument in itself, the whole "customer is king" idea that seems to be taken so seriously in the USA), the company (and the people working there) do what they think is best, from the CEO to the lowest sculptor. They can use whatever tools they want to make an informed decision and they can decide if they want to create a product with a more widespread appeal or aim for a smaller niche where they (hopefully) get to create something that is more to their own liking. Do you think they let the sculptors at Disney just "do their thing" and then sell whatever toys they come up with? Their art is a job first and self-fulfillment second (or third) and heavily regulated from the top to meet whatever specifications Disney needs. If they can't handle that they won't be employed for long.

GRRM, for example, created ASoIaF because he wanted to creates something that he was not able to do while writing TV shows (and was a bit fed up with that) and didn't even think it would be adapted for TV at the time (and when it happened he didn't have full control over the TV series because it was somebody else's project) while other writers create novels with the aim/hope of getting a TV deal. Some comics are made to look like storyboards (easier to adapt) and made as appealing as possible for TV/movie people because overall comic sales are not doing that great. If you think they are all aiming for the highest concentration of artistic expression and noting else in their work then the only word that comes to mind is: naive.

And why do these arguments about art/free speech in a heavily commercial context always make the creators out to be weak willed pushovers who for some reason can't be trusted to form their own opinion? If they can't handle criticism they are in the wrong business (they should have learned how do that way back in art school or in their creative writing classes). They are creating a commercial product and it's their choice what audience they want to target. They need to be ready to deal with criticism like adults. There are other field of employment where you don't have to deal with other people's opinions.

The truth is if it's art/Art and also a product/commerce then you have to decide what your priorities are. You live in a human/capitalistic society where your choices have consequences. If you want to to go full art and not care about the possible commercial ramifications then you are free to do that but if that decision results in low or unsustainable sales numbers then you have only yourself to blame for that. The customer doesn't owe you or your creation any attention, sales, or admiration just because you created something that you consider art. And if you turn heavily towards the commerce/product side then some people will make fun of your "art" for the ewoks or for the Michael Bay-ish senseless garbage movie (while you end up swimming in money).

There are several glaring problems with this, the biggest being that the audience is not of one singular mind and does not speak with one singular voice - nor, frankly, are they always aware of what they really want from something (if GW followed half the recommendations I see, it would not produce the game they think it would). The majority of your audience either enjoys it quietly or consumes it in quiet indifference, and those loud people decrying your work at the top of their lungs represent a vocal minority - a very vocal, VERY entitled minority. And often, they aren't your customers and changing your work for their benefit won't make them your customers.

Lets really take GW as an actual example: People (the loud minority) have been complaining about GW doing things the wrong way for (literary) decades and GW have (for the most part) just ignored that criticism. See how easy it was for them to just not do whatever people wanted from them for a very long time because it's their company and not ours. People complain about art all the time and companies ignore nearly as much. Just read the first line of this reply to see why.

The only responsibility an artist has is to make something worth existing. Everything else is negotiable.

That also means your art could end up not sellable so you will need to find another jobs and create your art in your free time. There is no guarantee that you will be able to make money with your art. You can't ignoring the commercial aspect of all of this in thread about toys just because you want to win an internet argument. Context matters.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

Mario wrote:
art world (as in "capital a" Art)

The actual spectrum of artistic freedom here is surprisingly (and, with the economic disparities and lack of culture as a status symbol, which we've been seeing, increasingly) narrow: the top is dominated by art-as-investment (often with enjoyment as secondary or nonexistant), and the bottom is plagued with all of the regular commercial stuff you need to consider, leaving a small window where you're successful enough to not be scrounging but not so prestigious that your career is based on maintaining your buyers' investments. If you're not independently wealthy, the art world is a pretty hostile place.

I wanted to keep the post short (I was already rambling) thus the "even then you probably have more freedom to create what you want if you depend on neither and create for yourself in your free time" bit. Fine art is, more or less, it's own industry and next to the art-as-investment there's also the art-as-speculative-investment group where people try to push the young artists they invested in into prominence and fame. The industry has everything from high school popularity contests to economic gambling, in addition to the actual art. :/

Then there's a certain disdain from the Art world for the craftsmanship of illustrators and non-fine-art painters. Some people literary have multiple personas so their their artwork doesn't get devalued or seen as inferior from the art side. A few people even manage the jump from being a "lowly" illustrator to fine artist (although they tend to plateau at some pop art level) while some "real" artists pillage the history of illustration and comics and are seen as revolutionary. And there are also groups like ARC who have a allergic reaction to anything that drifts to far from realistic or representational art (ARC is not bad per se but sometimes just a bit narrow minded, in my opinion).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Of course Steam is under no obligation to sell your game, but it is effectively a form of censorship.

Maybe that more of a problem of Steam being a quasi-monopoly and not about censorship? Or is it also "effectively a form of censorship" that most big budget movies are rather safe and aimed at the mainstream. To me it just looks like big companies in billion dollar industries playing it very safe? I might not like it, I very much complain about it, and I spend my money somewhere else but I don't equate it with censorship. Because if that's censorship then nearly everything can be constructed as censorship.

When people say they want more normal female miniatures (or video game game characters) — the usual sexy/sexualised character complaints — some of the first replies are "then make your own, companies make what sells" and "if you want to buy some invest in it, nobody owes you these miniatures". Are practically armoured female miniatures somehow censored? Why is it always censorship when lewd content is considered but the harsh, rational, and capitalistic market when somebody wants a decent set or armour. It's funny how the argument is always censorship when they care but the market when they couldn't care less.

You want it? Then create a market for it. It seems that sexy female miniatures sell better than practically armoured ones. Why should it be so difficult for video games (when the market is orders of magnitude bigger)? If you want lewd games (to keep the argument simple) then maybe you should invest in them? If I remember correctly Steam has quite an extensive range of erotic/lewd visual novels/relationship simulators (cheap to produce), that type of gameplay just doesn't spread to other genres too much. They might experiment more if they had a bigger fanbase and budget so the occasional misstep wouldn't wipe out a company.

Besides if porn can make more money than Hollywood then somebody should really be able to profit from this unexploited market in the video gaming industry (from sexy to lewd, and even porn) with or without Steam. Wasn't this (NSFW?) the highest earner on https://www.patreon.com before it was shut down? No, not censorship, one of the developers took the money (just regular mismanagement). Or would that too be censorship in this vaguely all-encompassing definition of the term? More here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-14-highest-earning-game-on-patreon-cancelled-amidst-developer-squabble . Here's a link to a followup game (if somebody's interested): https://www.patreon.com/CloudMeadow (probably NSFW).

By the way that's a general you, I don't know what game preference AllSeeingSkink has and that preference is also not the point of my argument (If I remember correctly you don't like AoS too much and I can totally agree with that).