In Software-development as soon as you tell your customer something like "Oh, good idea, we're gonna do that." or even "Yeah, that can be done." before it's done, you lost.
Software is not easy, sometimes things take (much) longer than expected, sometimes other things get more important, sometimes things are not compatible with other things and have to be changed completely or you discover bugs while implementing new features etc.
But imagine the shitstorm if some good-willed community manager told the forum here that they will implement some feature before it got programmed, tested and confirmed working as intended internally.
That company that posts "BLATAND LIES!!! D:<" on their forums to scam supporters out of their money, when it doesn't work out as expected due to any reason...
GGG is the company with THE most direct communication between top management and players i know of anyway. One reason i support them, too, it's very commendable and shows how much they care, since that can also backfire hard if they're not extremely careful :)
artists may try to get better in their field for many reasons, but i don't think their worry over being criticized should be one of them. if an artist thought any art they produced would be less scrutinized then they might be more willing to experiment with their work and produce art they wanted to make instead of art they felt forced to make to meet some standards. imagine the freedom artists felt when they decided to do abstract art? they could literally throw paint at canvas and be satisfied with any results, because their intent was to produce abstract art. imagine if artists drawing inspiration from other art styles had the same freedom to do what they wanted with no regard for how it would be criticized. maybe some do for practice, but i imagine many artists are likely compelled to conform to the standards they learn. i don't think art produced to please the viewer is always as good as art produced to express the artists intent or vision.
Warning, overgeneralizations ahead:
While new freedoms do feel good for artists, I think in general new freedoms are the flair or shimmer on the larger structures of rules beneath them. You can't have art without rules, because art without rules can't be done poorly, and good art is by definition art that is not done poorly. Abstract art has different rules from representative art, but it still has rules. E.g. a lot of splatter-painting is not good splatter-painting, and some skills from other painting methods carry over into that style because their rulesets overlap to some degree.
of course you can have art without rules... "good art" cannot be defined because one person because one person might call a work of art good while another might say it's not good.
if somebody and their family with no knowledge of art lived in isolation on an island with nobody else around and they did charcoal drawings on rocks somebody could discover the island and see the drawings and consider them as good art.
of course you can have art without rules... "good art" cannot be defined because one person because one person might call a work of art good while another might say it's not good.
if somebody and their family with no knowledge of art lived in isolation on an island with nobody else around and they did charcoal drawings on rocks somebody could discover the island and see the drawings and consider them as good art.
Good art can be defined. I can define it, you can define it, anybody can define it. We might not agree with each other or the artist that their work is good or bad, but that doesn't make our definitions nonsensical, it just means that we have different definitions.
Like when someone tells you they'll "be there in a little bit" and then they arrive half an hour later which you think is a very long time. They weren't incorrect to say "in a little bit", and you weren't incorrect to have different expectations; the two of you just don't agree on what "in a little bit" means. Despite that, the both of you clearly HAVE a definition for it.
Same with art. You may say, "that's bad art" or "that's not art", and you aren't wrong, but I can still say that you are wrong and be correct to say so. It's not very interesting if I just say that, it's much more useful if we compare our definitions of art to find out which seems more advantageous, but for you to say "good art" and me to say "not art", again, isn't really incorrect on either end.
It's like people who say "philosophy is just masturbation" :) they're certainly not wrong either
of course you can have art without rules... "good art" cannot be defined because one person because one person might call a work of art good while another might say it's not good.
if somebody and their family with no knowledge of art lived in isolation on an island with nobody else around and they did charcoal drawings on rocks somebody could discover the island and see the drawings and consider them as good art.
Good art can be defined. I can define it, you can define it, anybody can define it. We might not agree with each other or the artist that their work is good or bad, but that doesn't make our definitions nonsensical, it just means that we have different definitions.
Like when someone tells you they'll "be there in a little bit" and then they arrive half an hour later which you think is a very long time. They weren't incorrect to say "in a little bit", and you weren't incorrect to have different expectations; the two of you just don't agree on what "in a little bit" means. Despite that, the both of you clearly HAVE a definition for it.
Same with art. You may say, "that's bad art" or "that's not art", and you aren't wrong, but I can still say that you are wrong and be correct to say so. It's not very interesting if I just say that, it's much more useful if we compare our definitions of art to find out which seems more advantageous, but for you to say "good art" and me to say "not art", again, isn't really incorrect on either end.
It's like people who say "philosophy is just masturbation" :) they're certainly not wrong either
so by your reasoning if i wanted i could write my own definitions for every word in the dictionary, and i could say everybody else was crazy and saying wrong things while only i say true things? if there is to be a universally agreed upon definition of art, it should have as few limitations as possible so everybody could accept it.
of course you can have art without rules... "good art" cannot be defined because one person because one person might call a work of art good while another might say it's not good.
if somebody and their family with no knowledge of art lived in isolation on an island with nobody else around and they did charcoal drawings on rocks somebody could discover the island and see the drawings and consider them as good art.
Good art can be defined. I can define it, you can define it, anybody can define it. We might not agree with each other or the artist that their work is good or bad, but that doesn't make our definitions nonsensical, it just means that we have different definitions.
Like when someone tells you they'll "be there in a little bit" and then they arrive half an hour later which you think is a very long time. They weren't incorrect to say "in a little bit", and you weren't incorrect to have different expectations; the two of you just don't agree on what "in a little bit" means. Despite that, the both of you clearly HAVE a definition for it.
Same with art. You may say, "that's bad art" or "that's not art", and you aren't wrong, but I can still say that you are wrong and be correct to say so. It's not very interesting if I just say that, it's much more useful if we compare our definitions of art to find out which seems more advantageous, but for you to say "good art" and me to say "not art", again, isn't really incorrect on either end.
It's like people who say "philosophy is just masturbation" :) they're certainly not wrong either
Spoiler
so by your reasoning if i wanted i could write my own definitions for every word in the dictionary, and i could say everybody else was crazy and saying wrong things while only i say true things? if there is to be a universally agreed upon definition of art, it should have as few limitations as possible so everybody could accept it.
I mean, nothing's stopping you from doing that. You'd have a hard time communicating with anyone and would probably be institutionalized, so those are good reasons not to, whereas I can't think of a reason to do what you are suggesting. But if you can, then go for it I guess. We don't have to agree. We can have different definitions and discuss the relative merits of them. I know that I have some specifications in mind when I say "art", and you probably do too, but I like my definition so you'd have to convince me not to stick with it.
of course you can have art without rules... "good art" cannot be defined because one person because one person might call a work of art good while another might say it's not good.
if somebody and their family with no knowledge of art lived in isolation on an island with nobody else around and they did charcoal drawings on rocks somebody could discover the island and see the drawings and consider them as good art.
Good art can be defined. I can define it, you can define it, anybody can define it. We might not agree with each other or the artist that their work is good or bad, but that doesn't make our definitions nonsensical, it just means that we have different definitions.
Like when someone tells you they'll "be there in a little bit" and then they arrive half an hour later which you think is a very long time. They weren't incorrect to say "in a little bit", and you weren't incorrect to have different expectations; the two of you just don't agree on what "in a little bit" means. Despite that, the both of you clearly HAVE a definition for it.
Same with art. You may say, "that's bad art" or "that's not art", and you aren't wrong, but I can still say that you are wrong and be correct to say so. It's not very interesting if I just say that, it's much more useful if we compare our definitions of art to find out which seems more advantageous, but for you to say "good art" and me to say "not art", again, isn't really incorrect on either end.
It's like people who say "philosophy is just masturbation" :) they're certainly not wrong either
so by your reasoning if i wanted i could write my own definitions for every word in the dictionary, and i could say everybody else was crazy and saying wrong things while only i say true things? if there is to be a universally agreed upon definition of art, it should have as few limitations as possible so everybody could accept it.
i happen to like the definition "once declared as art, no one can remove that declaration, and from that point on is just a discussion of execution and opinion." execution is an objective discussion where someone can be wrong, examples include clean edges where intended, realistic proportions where intended; basically "did the artist match their intentions on the piece, and are things smooth." and opinion stuff comes down to "did i like the thing at the end of it all", with the notable examples of heavy metal music, and the game "dear esther", two things that are frequently well executed for the intentions of the makers by many accounts but equally frequently disagreed on as "did i like it or not".
why do you think it's useful to put limitations and rules on art?
First, I'd say that limitations and rules are sort of ingrained in art. Calling something art brings with it expectations as to what the object you are describing will be like. Some people think art should be beautiful. Some people think art should make you feel things. Some people think art should be expressive. Some people think art should be <adjective>. I'm sure you have expectations where if someone says "this is art", you expect it to have certain qualities. For the word "art" to be a useful word, it has to describe some things and not others.
Second, I think it's useful because it helps me to discriminate good art from bad art. Explicitly preferring some art to other art, to me, increases my enjoyment of the art that I call "good". It also gives me an excuse NOT to look at the "bad" art, which allows me to focus more on the art that I like. Lastly, evaluating art that I don't like ("bad art") can even heighten my appreciation of good art, because I see what the good artist could have done badly, but didn't.
The rules that I place on art vary with context and are subject to change, but I still think it's useful to approach art with some expectations which can be either satisfied or confounded (neither of which is always a bad thing).
why do you think it's useful to put limitations and rules on art?
First, I'd say that limitations and rules are sort of ingrained in art. Calling something art brings with it expectations as to what the object you are describing will be like. Some people think art should be beautiful. Some people think art should make you feel things. Some people think art should be expressive. Some people think art should be <adjective>. I'm sure you have expectations where if someone says "this is art", you expect it to have certain qualities. For the word "art" to be a useful word, it has to describe some things and not others.
Second, I think it's useful because it helps me to discriminate good art from bad art. Explicitly preferring some art to other art, to me, increases my enjoyment of the art that I call "good". It also gives me an excuse NOT to look at the "bad" art, which allows me to focus more on the art that I like. Lastly, evaluating art that I don't like ("bad art") can even heighten my appreciation of good art, because I see what the good artist could have done badly, but didn't.
The rules that I place on art vary with context and are subject to change, but I still think it's useful to approach art with some expectations which can be either satisfied or confounded (neither of which is always a bad thing).
if you expect art to be a certain way you are more likely to be disappointed than if you didn't put expectations on things called art. art isn't required to be a useful word, and it's not required to describe only some things and not others. one person might decide everything they're able to see is art, and they would likely have a much better outlook on the world than somebody who scrutinizes what things look like and calls some things art and some things (noun). you aren't doing yourself any favors by judging art as good or bad, or by checking if art matches the traditional standards. there really isn't any reason to judge art unless you need to put a value on it, and you'll likely enjoy seeing things more if you don't put expectations on them like how you think they should be.
