Oh Look, Valve are dickheads, part Infinity

"

ghamadvar wrote:

But it also does not mean less serious art (which is nothing more than a term brought up by bohemians that don't sell their shit). So: Making money or having money is not a factor in making "good" art. It can't be. Some of the highest paid artists of their times did amazing, timeless work that lasts till now. And what is serious art? Is Furious 7 really comparable to the works of Haneke(if you meant him with Henneke)? Why compare uncomparable stuff. Hanekes "Amour" compared to Furious 7? Really? Furious 7 is an action movie. I have not seen it (i am not a fan of cars). But let's take avengers 2 as an example. Much money. Action movie. Awesome. Could not have been done without money. As nearly every other action movie out there. Eisensteins work compared with Furious 7? Really? Alexander Antonow compared to Vin Diesel raging in cars? Did you just want to throw in some super-serious names? Should we compare "Oldschool" with "Citizen Kane" then? Or Hitchcock with Sandler? Or the early Brando with Seth Rogen?

I answered no ones question right. I believe that 50 shades is bullshit. Some of my friends love it. But: I never said that it's not art. That's a huge difference. I think that Rihannas music is shit. But i would never call her a non-serious artist. I hate people who boo artists on stage. My sister is a great actress. Friends of mine are artists. They live and die by the applause. I know how hard they work, even if they just do commercials or advertising for companies. Who am i or who are you to judge if something is art? Throw in as many names as you wish. Especially those that sound sophisticated. If you think that they let you look more educated and more trained in the high arts of highest arts: so be it. I had more than one discussion with people who wanted to tell me what is art and what not. That's the wrong way to deal with taste imo. Call something bullshit. No problem with it. But please stop throwing in names just to sound "better". There are too many examples of great art and business-models out there to prove you wrong. Money or the amount of money one can make with his or her art does not determine the quality of his or her art. Art is all about the spectator or the recipient. If you don't like it: fine. But it may still be art. You wrote:

"

"Usually(not always but definetely most times), the commercialisation of art goes hand in hand with huge decrease in quality."

And i say: no, it is not. More often, the commercialisation of art is the fuel that drives the artist. DaVinci, Michelangelo for example needed patrons and money to do what they did. There was always money paying the greatest artworks mankind knows. Or do you think Michelangelo did the Pieta just by stealing a rock from some poor fella and that's it? I agree that money can be dangerous for arts. But it can be fuel also. And in most cases, it is the second.
Even Eisenstein made some movies to earn money, btw. ;)
So: I get you. I too have problems to call something like Rihanna art. But my sister teached me some lessons. I don't have to compare Keith Jarrett to Rihanna. I love Jazz, i hate that Techno-R&B shit. But: i don't say what is art and what is not. "Endless" by Keith Jarrett is my song. For me, it is the best song ever written. For others, it is "Bitch better have my money" (had to google this ;))
And yeah: Video Games are art. There is better stuff out there, like GTA or Metal Gear or Dark Souls. And there is some brutally bad shit out there like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYt3B9lcUm0
I don't have to like it. But i leave the art-question unanswered. Especially when it is about the benjamins. I believe that money does not determine the sobriety of art. It is the artists character that does. And i don't know that people too good to judge over that ;)
Fine with it. Are you?

"

Poutsos wrote:

It's all good man, no need to be hostile :). I am not trying to sound serious, i am just mentioning some of my favourite artists that happen to not be as commercially successful.

You stated that more money means more serious buiseness. I disputed that by saying in Art more money does not nesceserily grant better results. On the contrary, in my opinion usually blockbusters in every form are usually inferior in quality to other lower buget creations. And for me everything is comparable. You can very well compare The White Ribbon to Furious 7. You can compare the quality of script, direction, photography, the symbolism, maybe how deep the movie is etc. For me, when i clasify a product as "commercial", i do not judge by how much it sells, or hwo much it is funded, but rather on how much the artist has to compromise his vision to appeal more, and here come the negative effects of money and competition. Of course I AM NOt saying that there are not many examples of people who did not compromise their vision, and yet they were very successful comercially as well. For me there is objectivity in art. Being a university schooled musician myself, i could never put Keith Jarret or Stravinsky and Rihana or Jay Z on the same level, no matter the personal taste of individuals.

Now moving on, i never claimed that Rihanaa or blockbusters or anything of the sort are not actually art. I just claimed that in my opinion, are as good or as serious art. And here is where i am starting to losing you. On this post you seem to claim that every art product is equal, and it comes down personal taste if i read you right. No? Well i disagree for reasons i stated above. But fair enough. This alone seems to contradict your statement in the previous post, where you said that more money means more serious buiseness(while at the same time admitting that you yourself enjoy music with far less money involved), bascially implying that it can lead to better results, better mods in this occasion. No? If i am wrong correct me on that.

To summarize, i beleive that
1) More money and competion does not lead to better results when it comes to art.
2) I do not beleive that all art is equal and it is a matter of subjective preference. I beleive there are objectives that can determine to an extent the quality of different aspects of work

and you beleive that

1) More money and competion will actually lead to better results
2) All art is equal and is a matter of personal preference

"

ghamadvar wrote:

The word you are looking for is "human community". Witch hunt is nothing exclusively executed by gamers. People do this. All the time.

And stop that general judgement. It makes you look ... weird.

"

Too bad they removed it.

Modders deserve to get paid for their work.

"

ghamadvar wrote:

Yeah, sorry. I was too hostile. Was stuck in the middle of a fucking photoshop problem and shouldn't have answered in that state of mind. My apologies.
@topic: Your summarisation just hits it. Just exchange the "will lead" to "can lead". And add: "More money never automatically means loss of quality".
To take your Furious-Comparison: Movies like "The white Ribbon" need different directing, script or photography than movies like Furious 7. So they sometimes need different types of artists. Or: How good do you think would a Furious Movie made by Haneke be? ;)) It might be stunning in terms of script, motives or directing. But i bet my 90% on it that it may suck as an action movie ...
And now imagine Michael Bay doing "The white Ribbon". Or better: don't.
My point is: Of course there are different levels of art out there. Nobody compares Beethoven with the Sex Pistols. Nobody compares "Schindler's List" with "One night at the museum". But: different levels can work for different purposes. Imagine a world full of art only made by serious, sober, highly educated artists. Everything would be cynical, depressing, layered, complicated and what not then. The purpose of art (in my opinion) is to do something with you. To move you, enlighten you, motivate you, show you new worlds or push the limits. Jarretts "Endless" did this for me. For others, it is Michael Jackson. Or Queen. Or even Rihanna. Some love Graffitti, others love "The scream".
And you clearly have mistaken me: More money means more serious business is a fact (in most cases). I only said that it does not automatically lead to poorer results. The sistine chapel could not have been done without the power of money. Or it could have been done but would then be just another painting at a chapels ceiling ;)
There are too many examples that prove you or me wrong, i know. So my conclusion is: money ain't the problem for arts. It is always the character of an artist and the character of their fanbase / recipients.

And of course there are objectives that can determine to an extent the quality of different aspects of work. But what are they? And can they be used on different types of art?