Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Chat about anything not fitting into the other categories.
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

(These replies moved from the original Dm again thread here - b.)

hmmm, it is all ruined by money and possesion. if one draws a cave painting of a bull, does that mean any painting of a bull from then on is not original. how much different does the next painting have to be before being called originally theirs. i differ with most people on this. just because somebody spent time to do something doesn't mean they own it forever. just as if someone said they owned language. well the same goes with bits and bytes, it's a tool. in my opinion, if you want it for yourself, don't give it to the public, otherwise suffer the fate like everything else. you want it to be yours, keep it to yourself. i agree with zoom on that. it is about money and possesion, but nobody can own anything to themselves if they want everyone else to play with it. that's not practical. i'd like to know how much in a percentage a pianting/picture has to be in order to be called original. is it one brush stroke, 1000 brush strokes, or 1000 pixels, or colour, or whatever, where the hell is the boundry and who gets to make the rules. want something personal, keep it to yourself in my opinion, otherwise, TOO BAD. that's life for ya. kinda harsh but that's reality for ya. i'm not intersted in money or possesion, just fun.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
oh_brother
Son of Heaven
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:13 am
Location: The Screamer Room

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by oh_brother »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:i'm not intersted in money or possesion, just fun.
Good for you! :D But sadly these people are. They are taking someone else's work and re-selling it. I imagine most people would not mind someone using it for fun (in fact may people on this forum do just that!)
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

exactly oh brother, it's money money money, possesion x 10. that's the drag of using language for money, cause someone else is going to do the same. language is language in any form, it should be fluent, writting a book is better, using 0s and 1s, well, you can see what that does. i do not think that George Gilbert thought about money, although he could have, he did it for fun. it might be wise to treat this effort as such or else be prepared to be had. i understand their grief, and money does make people strive to do more, but as life goes, programming is a tough thing.

what is funny is if nobody wants their programming, they'll be complaining even more, begging someone to use it, so they are going to complain no matter what.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
ebeneezergude
Expert
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: I see walls stretching off into the darkness...

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by ebeneezergude »

I disagree Shaman. Some people make a living from being creative. They can sell their creativity, because other people could be interested in it and enjoy it. If someone comes along and steals it, by repackaging in it, and then selling it themselves, that is a theft. The whole point of creating some things, is to not keep it to yourself. Look at virtually any designed object, graphic, or text you can see around you.

It means the person who invested so much time and resource by creating it, is robbed of their work. Conversely, someone who has not been creative or so hard working, can take the work of another, repackage it, and sell it for profit, and is therefore not honestly making a living from putting in the hard work, by being creative, by investing their time and their livelihood by taking the time and effort to make the piece of work, art, programme, etc. It's exploitation.

So saying "keep fun to yourself" is obtuse. Sorry mate, but this isn't a "that's life" situation. This is theft. Bit and bytes are not a tool, they are words... they are information, organised in a certain way, to communicate ideas, movement, relationships, tension, amusement, fear, suspense, intrigue. You do not see bits and bytes when you experience Dungeon Master (as any program). You experience something much much more. When you listen to an mp3, you do not experience bits and bytes.

You do not own "words". You own that sequence of "words" if you've given them meaning. The words create pictures, sounds, emotions, responses. Words on their own mean nothing. The FTL guys, their code, their "words" - they are the words or the paint of their creativity, in this scenario, on a computer. They are not themselves the creativity, but the way in which they're interpreted and arranged, that's what gives them their meaning and uniqueness, their creativity. You're seemingly using a reductionist principle to no real relevance, and missing the point, if I've understood it correctly...! :) (sorry if I didn't...!).

If someone creates a definitive piece of original work, I would argue they absolutely do own it, if not forever, but definitely within living memory.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

well, my point is that if you want to make money using language, it's going to be tough. it is not going to be easy. it'd be better if someone was a doctor, you can't steal doctors skills say, but someone could take language. bad choice if one wants nothing but money or possesion. see what happened when they tried to control music, which is a form of language. it did not work, what good is a song if nobody wants to listen to it anyway. you can't stop others from sharing it, that's not practical. i miss napster :) , now there are just more elaborate wasys of getting it. my son can go to the store and buy bootleg cds of movies as an example. it is what happens when one takes something that is fluent and tries to make money on it. everyone here i bet has illegal movies and programs, and who knows what the hell else. that's what i was saying, and i'll say again, i understand their grief. writting a program is BOUND to have someone take it, so it'd be a bad choice for them if money and possesion is all that matters. it'd be like having your wallet dangling from your back pocket. you know someone is going to try and take it. i am sure i do not have to explain why we have piracy, or why people steal. it's the WHY we're talking about.

so my point is trying to control a fluent thing as language is impossible, so people shouldn't be surprised if they find someone else has it.

now imagine if you had to pay for the dictionary. somebody made, printed it and sells the book, but we all know they don't own the words or the meaning of the words that we use. language is suppose to be used, that's what its for, so don't be surprised if someone uses it is what i'm saying. better keep it a secret and do a good job marketing it before someone else gets it.

now i have to charge you a dollar for that explanation :)
i used letters instead of 1s and 0s, not much difference is there. if someone didn't steal the info on making a nuclear bomb we wouldn't have 9 other nations today with nuke capabilities, and that's all because they used language, a fluent thing that can't be contained. do you understand what i mean gude?

now that last statement makes sense to me, but what happens if someone looks at the piece of creative art work and decides to do one just like it, would it be still theirs? especially if it looks the same, would it be theirs is the question? i'd have to say no on that gude, because you can't own it, even though they look the same, the image was fluent like language, and someone else used it, oh well is what i'd say to them. i do understand your point that they worked hard and they arranged the numbers to make a program, sure, but my point was is you can't contain it, it's impossible. that's why we have piracy. so if one wants to make money, better off being a doctor, you can't pirate that because it's not a language mate.

ahh, an mp3 is bits and bytes, it's a digital wave arranged in 1's n 0s otherwise the computer wouldn't be able to use it. it's a language.

no bid deal gude, i'm not taking it seriously, i like your point of view, it's a point of view that i've been dealing with for some time on what others find as their own, in my point of view, nobody has anything that is all theirs if they put it out there, cause someone is going to use it, there is no denying that. this lesson i am refering to is a shamanistic one, shamans don't believe in ownership or possesion, this is why i like your comments. i want to know what people think and why they think that way :) answer is, money and possesion
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
PetriH
Ask me about LoG
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:32 am

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by PetriH »

I think this question is more about ethics that anything else. Are you really saying that a selfish act (stealing) is ok and understandable just because it is easy to do it?

Saying that a person who would like to pursue a creative career for living should forget it and be a doctor sounds really strange to me. Wouldn't it be better if you would instead encourage him on his chosen path and maybe even buy his works if you happen to enjoy them?

It doesn't have to be all gloom -- all (well 99% of) humans seem to have this deeply rooted notion of right and wrong. And we all know that these guys are doing wrong.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

not at all Petri, it is natural, stealing is all natural yes. language is natural too, you just took the words right out of my mouth :)

it's a comparison Petri, i think it should have been said, make something that's fluent and it will be just that, fluent, you can't stop it in other words. of course i agree with the encouragement, but as things are when people want money and possesion, it really takes away the creative powers one may have. that is what this is about, money and possesion.

Petri, are you saying you're innocent? hehehe, i doubt it. on my first apple i got, the first games i had were from someone else, and a good thing too. it encourgaed me to play with the computer, go out to the stores and actually buy stuff, which is why that GOR COIN is so valuable to me.

there is not much money in programms anymore because of its fluency, the money is now in the services to the software, not the software. hence we have viruses. online gaming offers their engine for free, i think you know why.

it is immoral to steal, yes, but in nature it happens all the time. are you saying we are above nature? now the conversation gets interesting :)

ownership is a tough call. i bought my house, i own the deed but i don't own it. nature does, the animals do, everyone does. matter of fact it can be expropriated from me. so even though i think i own it, i really don't. i sure as hell not going to stop the animals from visiting :) possesion kills everything.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by beowuuf »

I think the semantics of language might be getting in the way of discussion. Ideas and properties are an interesting and murky area. Ideas beget ideas, and there are huge debates regarding


Petri'case case highlights it very well. The spirit and ideas of Dungeon Master pushed him on to make Legend of Grimlock. However, LoG is a homage that tips its roots, goes to a new place, and also doens't simply take the hard work and artifacts of its inspirations. It is the awesome power of creativity carrying on.

Money in creative regards can simply be a mechanism to both ensure that the sacrifices of time that such endeavours create can be acknowledged, and to ensure that the creativity can continue. Indeed, I have and will happy support Petri and the rest of Almost Human given the effort they put in ramping up to the release, the extra additions they made to create a modding community after release, and the fact they are already moving their efforts on to LoG2.

See also Rasmus's creation of Dungeon Dwellers. A game that owes to Dungeon Keeper, etc, yet is using original creative assets and carrying on the spirit to something new rather than taking the soul of something.


With the case of the game that started this thread, what has been put in is minimal. FTL created a great game, and the modding community here put in creative time to honour that and expand upon the ideas. The game presented doens't honour any of that, and rather than allow any of that to carry on, channeled that energy away to a dead end. The engine presented doens't work well, and is taken directly from others.

We would want FTL to be the ones to carry on a direct DM game if nothing has been added. we would want thoe in the community to carry on their fan works otherwise. The final product here is not transformative, it was simply exploitative, with not enough added to what existed.


Anyway, the general arguments existing at the moment regarding commerce and creativity, and interllectual property, etc are facinating. There seems to be more friction regarding it - Disney, comics in general, film/book/tv properties, art and digital media, etc - and more iinformation available. It might be an idea to carry on this discussion in more general terms in a different forum such as the News & Chat area. I'm not comfortable giving the original game in this thread any more exposure, nor is it fun to limit the debate to their example alone.
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Dungeon Masters... again

Post by Seriously Unserious »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:imagine if you had to pay for the dictionary.
If you're getting a particular publication of a dictionary then you do have to pay for it. The author and publisher do put a ton of work into assembling the words, derivations and definitions into the dictionary and the publisher and printers all put a huge amount of time, money and other resources into printing them and bringing them to market. Are you saying they should do all that work for free? for no reward or compensation whatsoever, just because it's language and no-one can own language in any form? if so I strongly disagree with you on that point C-S.

If I were to write [Petri's and Chaos Shaman's posts in full], and claim it as my own original thoughts and ideas I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed off with me, and rightly so, because I would have just stole your ideas and work from you, and taken the credit for myself.

[Admin Note: I removed all the copy/pasted stuff. @Seriously Unserious, please make your point more succinctly without quoting the entirety of other people's posts, thanks - it becomes incredibly hard to follow!]

That is the point the those like 'gude and petri and myself are making here, it's not just about that it's possible, or even easy to copy someone else's work, but that it is morally and ethically wrong to do so. In my own personal code of conduct, the first and foremost rule I have for myself is treat others as I would want to be treated myself. I'll be the first to admit that I've broken this rule more times then I'd like, and will probably do so again from time to time. Sometimes it may be necessary to break this rule, if I'm faced with evil, such as someone attacking and raping a woman for example, in that case I'd do whatever I have to to defend the woman and never mind if what I do to the rapist is something I'd want done to myself or not, when it comes to stopping an evil act such as deliberately harming another for personal gain or pleasure, all bets are off. Other times I just screw up and do something I later regret. But I do my best to live by my code of ethics always, and always, I strive to do better at living by it, and have fewer screw ups in the future.
Chaos-Shaman wrote:it is immoral to steal, yes, but in nature it happens all the time. are you saying we are above nature? now the conversation gets interesting
Again I must disagree. To say this is to say that we are all basically evil in nature and this is just not true, nor is it workable for this to be so, for if it were our species could not survive, we would destroy ourselves fast if it were so, and if it ever does become the case that we have become evil in nature we would destroy ourselves guaranteed.

Yet here we are, so no, evil is not our basic nature. Stealing is not our basic nature. Selfishness is not our basic nature. We evolved from pack animals. We are a social species that needs to interact with and co-operate with other humans to survive. Deprive a human of this basic need and he (or she) will go horribly and deeply insane surprisingly fast. No, theft, selfishness and other evil acts are a form of insanity that separates those who commit such acts from their basic, good nature. The more such act one does, the further from your true nature, your true self one becomes. It is in our nature to co-operate, to help, to create and to basically do good.
beowuuf wrote:Money in creative regards can simply be a mechanism to both ensure that the sacrifices of time that such endeavours create can be acknowledged, and to ensure that the creativity can continue. Indeed, I have and will happy support Petri and the rest of Almost Human given the effort they put in ramping up to the release, the extra additions they made to create a modding community after release, and the fact they are already moving their efforts on to LoG2.
I completely agree with this statement. I'll also add that money is basically a tool to make exchanges much easier.

Could you imagine what it would take to complete a simple transaction without money? Let's say you need a loaf of bread. You don't know how to make it yourself because you are a web developer, not a baker, so you go to the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread, you go to one store and the cashier says, "sorry, we don't need any web design services right now, try again later, maybe we'll need something in a few months." you go to 6 other stores and get similar answers. What are you to do, wait several months before you can eat? So you must barter your web design services to someone who does need it, and so you get cell phones, but you can't eat cell phones and none of the grocery stores are looking for cell phones, so you must now figure out what the grocery stores need and trade the cell phones for that, and fast because you're getting very hungry and need that food fast. so you take a carload of cell phones around and collect up a truckload of vegetables from local farmers who do need cell phones, and that you know grocery stores will definitely be looking for that, so you can keep what you need for yourself and trade the rest for the other groceries you need. but wow, you must cart a trunk full of cell phones and become a cell phone salesman to get a truckload of veggies and become a veggie wholesaler to get the groceries you need, and that's after being a web developer to get those cell phones in the first place.

It's so much simpler when you can just do your job of developing websites, or whatever it is you do for a living, get paid in money, and then use that money to buy what you need then hauling a load of other crap you don't need around trying to find someone who both does need that and has what you need isn't it?
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by beowuuf »

Too many words! Will read later! Split the discussion off from the original thread so it can continue afresh here.


Money is an IOU, a fact many people forget, including the people who have turned the idea of capitalism in to a crazy super-capitalism. You do work or create something, and if a direct barter can't be established, money is a logical system of tradeable IOUs. But that's all they are, and it's terrifying to remember that's all we are sitting on. WE don't actually have anything of value in the notes we have (not even the value of the gold/silver anymore the coins used to be made of) just a promise someone will recompense us for our work or items. And now it's even scarier, because we have banks who will are now giving us promises that they'll give us back our IOUs. That's two levels of removal from having anything of value!

It's important to remember that for creative endeavours. A work of art or creative endeavour automatically has inherent value, even if it's not being charged for. Indeed, it's money that's the worthless part, so not trading the art for the worthless part is fine. And vice versa, a professional art was likely created by allowing others to work. So charging for it is fine to acknowledge the value, but there is also an inherent though that the person with the money did work for society the artist did not, so the artist could have the time to do the art. So there always needs to be a mutual appreciation and respect of the time invested by both sides. An artist isn't automatically entitled to compensation if they have indulged in a work no one else cares about. And vice versa, if an art has value to a person, then it logically has monetary value to a person, and should be respected as such even if no money needs to change hands - it's a respect of the time and the work, not of the artificail constructs of money itself, nor necessarily a baser expression of possession.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

i'll not quote those messages, it gets to big. to me it really comes down to - these guys are making money on something they got from someplace else, that seems to bother a heck of a lot of people, and that's understandable. in my view, that's the way life goes beowuuf, always has and always will. i will say one more time just in case anyone missed it. I UNDERSTAND THEIR GRIEF, and what i was doing was explaining WHY. now you have to see the point i made about having games (pirate or not) that we obtain without buying them. here is what i see, i see that those who finally find this game that never saw it before, if they LIKE it, they'll be back for more, guess what, they are going to end up HERE. if they like it as much as we did, they'll only end up here, this community GROWS with this kind of exposure. so it helps as well as hinders, and there is nothing that can be done about one idea being taken and growing. i really do see an expansion to the game, not a hinderance, although someones nose might get out of joint, i don't blame them, but it is the way it is, that's why i said TOO BAD, cause there is crap anyone can do about it. any draconian measures will only hurt DM.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

no, SU, you're off the topic. i wasn't saying who should get what, i was saying WHY who gets what. you said:

*Again I must disagree. To say this is to say that we are all basically evil in nature and this is just not true, nor is it workable for this to be so, for if it were our species could not survive, we would destroy ourselves fast if it were so, and if it ever does become the case that we have become evil in nature we would destroy ourselves guaranteed.

what i said was we are no different than nature, it is what we do. i guess we are not causing GW then. one could see that as evil, heh, but i am not sure of your meaning SU. there is one comment from nature that takes care of this, ONLY THE STRONGEST SURVIVE. nature wipes out itself quite often, it is the cycle of life.

*Could you imagine what it would take to complete a simple transaction without money? Let's say you need a loaf of bread.

well, people steal for a loaf of bread because they are starving, and then there are the people who cut your hand off for stealing it because it theirs, yeah, us pack animals came from that SU, heh, glad i wasn't around hungry in those days :) i also don't believe in the theory of how we got here consciously, we evolved yes, but how that happened is not found, we do not have pithicanthrope yet, that may never be found.
i love your stories SU, i can't wait for your Dungeons to come out. i am glad you express yourself so well :)
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

i like what you said beowuuf, it is common sense. i am sorry that people have their artwork and programms etc used (stolen) but we wouldn't be as far as we are today if everything had to come from a patent, nowhere near where we are. money is the best tool ever, but unforunately it brings out the theft nature in us, more you have, more someone wants to TAX the hell out of you, business has been struggling with this for some time. the more people want to steal from you period. this is why shamans do not want that stuff so much, it brings in the wrong spirit, it obviously kills, distorts vision, closes the minds eye completely. if i won an incredible amount of money it would be given right back to the poor, not organisations, the poor on the street themselves.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

it could be better to ask those guys who are ripping off DM and not adding enough to it to point others to this forum, rather than go through the ugliness of ownerships rights. the business model should be to attract those who will never see DM or have never seen DM before which is what they have or are doing, this would be the younger gen. and if we're lucky, one of these new DM fans just might really add something to it. keeping it inside the circle will not help DM at all. money seems to be the problem, possesion and money. if one is completely happy, they will not ask for money, they won't care, and they'll just hand it out, they want people to have it. guess that's the other side of the coin.

i'm willing to put thousands of hours in for fun, not for money, that's what i'm saying.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Seriously Unserious »

beowuuf wrote: http://dungeon-master.com/forum/viewtop ... 57#p140334
Money is an IOU [etc.]
I love the way you expressed that beowuuf, well said, very well said :D
Chaos-Shaman wrote:it could be better to ask those guys who are ripping off DM and not adding enough to it to point others to this forum, rather than go through the ugliness of ownerships rights.
Not really. I'd rather this forum not be associated in any way with what those crooks at SUPE are doing. From what I've heard and read from the comments they seem to have put out a cheap immigration, illegal, and a buggy hard to play one at that. Those new to DM who's first experience with it is that knock-off version would be more likely to come out of that experience hating DM, and thus less likely to become a part of this community. No, I'd rather their first exposure to DM be either the original, or a good, legal port or clone of the original, not an illegal knock-off that does a piss-poor job of imitating DM.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

i understand SU, but there is no way we can deal with it, and yes, beowuuf did the right thing, he delegated the situation and removed this chat to prevent trouble. it's my spirit that can be difficult, sorry guys, but someone has to put it out there. i find that not many can handle the other side of the coin, it's unfortunate, and it certainly does not help me any, i know this. well, i can see the box from where this character was released from, and it can be put back in, but that spirit is the one that comes up with wild ideas, it's a big sacrifice to put it back. i thank the both of you for protecting DM interests, and me.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by cowsmanaut »

coming late to the party as usual.. but here's my two cents worth..

One of the biggest issues my kind suffers (my kind being artists) is that there is an almost universal devaluing of our work. We spend years honing ability to gain the skills required to create things people will enjoy, that can evoke an emotional response, and even memories. I great song, or image can evoke excitement, or peace, anger, or sadness.. happiness or even feelings of love. People value the end product in a way that they may desire to keep that item and certainly treasure it.. but at a moment where money is requested.. suddenly the tables turn. "It's not worth that cost... surely you can just whip up one of these in a few mins. "

Visual art is the area which is damaged the most in terms of monetary recompense. Musicians appear to be doing ok, if their music is appealing.. however artists in the commercial sense are greatly under paid... and what's worse is many of them do not even see their own value and so work for these horrid amounts and continue the cycle of abuse. All because a lot of us are nerds who are greatly excited by working on a project we'll enjoy.. we enjoy that others enjoy the work we present. Many of us even socially inept and find appreciation only when someone compliments our work. It's quite sad. This is not true of every artist, certainly, but it is true for a good many.

Far too many people devalue the work of artisans of many types, the poets and programmers alike. However we should recognize the time, and passion that went into that skill set, and let's not forget the potential student loans for those of us in countries where school is not paid for us.. I paid mine off after 10 years.. and I'm considered lucky.. by the same tolken we reward those of moderate to zero skill with huge monetary value. Actors who are little more than a pretty face for example.

At any rate, my real point is this. When someone has spent a good amount of time leading up to a skill set, and then utilizes that skill set for their income, that should be simply respected. That no one should devalue them, and certain not take their work to sell for themselves. However, to consider that, you look at nearly any company does pretty much that, they pay a pittance to the artist and then sell the work for a butt load of cash.. but I digress.. I think my point is considerably poofed and somewhat clear :P

-moo
User avatar
Gambit37
Should eat more pies
Posts: 13714
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
Location: Location, Location
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Gambit37 »

It's incredibly difficult to make a living as an artist who sells art directly to the public. It seems that as an artist your much better off being "for hire" to work on art for things such as games, films, etc. I don't think I know of any artist who makes a good living selling their art directly to consumers. Are there actually any left?
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Seriously Unserious »

cowsmanaut wrote:Far too many people devalue the work of artisans of many types, the poets and programmers alike. However we should recognize the time, and passion that went into that skill set, and let's not forget the potential student loans for those of us in countries where school is not paid for us.. I paid mine off after 10 years.. and I'm considered lucky.. by the same tolken we reward those of moderate to zero skill with huge monetary value. Actors who are little more than a pretty face for example.

At any rate, my real point is this. When someone has spent a good amount of time leading up to a skill set, and then utilizes that skill set for their income, that should be simply respected. That no one should devalue them, and certain not take their work to sell for themselves. However, to consider that, you look at nearly any company does pretty much that, they pay a pittance to the artist and then sell the work for a butt load of cash.. but I digress.. I think my point is considerably poofed and somewhat clear :P

-moo
I do agree with most of what you said cows, but I couldn't help but notice that before you even finished that post you did the same thing to another branch of artists, actors. Being an actor is more then just flashing a pretty face in front of a camera, smiling and signing autographs for the adoring fans afterwords. For example, when Michael J. Fox was working on Family Ties and on Back To the Future at the same time, he was logging 18 to 22 hour days, 7 days a week, for several months while both the sitcom and movie were being filmed. I'd hardly call that untalented or not working his ass off for his paycheck. And M.J.F is a famous actor! There are 1000's of unknown actors working on TV ads, indie films, or live theater who are not getting paid much, just like there are 1000's of musicians who are toiling away in small venues, for a few 100 bucks a shot, and struggling to make it.

I'd say that all artists have a long, tough road to the top. Often the only ones who really do get the rewards that their talents, efforts and skills development are worth are a privileged few who become famous enough to command their own price. The talents of visual artists and poets though, are sadly rarely truly appreciated until long after their dead. This is too bad too, as these artists enrich the lives of everyone else, and they too deserve the recognition and financial rewards of, say a Michael J. Fox, a Shinia Twain or a Van Gough or an Edgar Allen Poe.

I wouldn't discount any branch of artist from the overworked, underpaid and under-appreciated category.
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by cowsmanaut »

I did not say all actors.. I've no idea why you went there.. my point is there ARE some actors and actress' who are little more than a pretty face.. like it or not. Though I do think the lot of them are rather over paid.

Take for example the disparity of say a Pixar animator. A lofty position in my line of work to be sure.. and certainly required to be of excellent caliber to even be considered for such a position. Their responsibility is to deliver a performance that will be true to the directors intent (just as an actor would) and it is based on nothing more than the voice, as the studio footage is often not body acting but a person shouting at a slip of paper with headphones on and standing sometimes rather still and sometimes not.. Then, unlike an actor who needs only be natural, the animator must make a very conscious decision of what to move and where, and what timing is required to feel natural, to follow specific arcs of movement and pay attention to the idea of gravity and even break rules when called for.. to remember to make sure objects do not pass through things because their is no collision detection in most rigs.. the knowledge of movement and behaviour is so much higher in an animators mind than any actor. and the work hours spent just delivering a mere few seconds of footage are enormous.. yet, the animator get's a fraction of the pay cheque, for a mountain of work, vs the actors mountain of a pay cheque with a fraction of the work. you see?

Anyway, there are rubbish musicians and artists too and not every one deserves the high paying jobs and respect.. there are artists who defecate paint on canvas and think it's a big deal (and no I'm not kidding, someone did this by shooting paint into their anus and then squatting over canvas.. ) you can even find photos of him and his work on google.. beware.. So, again, not ever artist or musician is worth the respect I'm talking about.. but some are highly talented and have worked long and hard to get there.. often working on products that are greatly loved and in fact making some people a LOT.. and I mean billions.. and yet that artist is lucky to pull enough to have an apartment and food, and will probably never have a home and might not even have retirement money.. as they need to be really careful as they try to save..

So again, I'm not saying every visual artist is with his weight in gold, nor am I suggesting any other artist is not. I'm saying it's an are where huge pay disparity exists, and is perpetuated and the amount of skill and time ataining that skill is not appreciated or often understood. Yet some without skill have a golden ticket somehow..
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by cowsmanaut »

Oh, and yes Gambit, some still do make a good living off of selling their own art.. it's actually the reverse of what you are saying a lot of times.. providing there is a good commercial appeal to that artists works. The one who is a content creator, one that meets a vast audience, can make a good deal of cash. The one who works for a studio often get's a slender pay cheque yet this is because they don't own the idea they are working on.. they just make it look good..

do you have the next cool character? or can you come up with iconic visuals that could be plastered on T-shirts? the next great idea like pokemon or angry birds.. simplistic games that require minimal programming skill, and simplistic artwork, yet somehow have a great appeal and just rake in the cash. Selling toys and shirts and mouse pads.. whatever..
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Seriously Unserious »

Nor was I saying you're saying that, nor am I saying that all artists do produce valuable work, but many do, in fact most do, they're value is just not known to most people so their work is simply not in demand.

I was merely pointing out that all forms of art have pretty much the same issues of recognition and pay for the talented artists to some degree or other. Of course, music, acting and novel writing are 3 forms were those who do make it can make a fortune at it. With many other forms of art it can be much harder, and even in those big 3 I mentioned specifically above, it's still not easy, just a little bit less hard with a little bit more money at the end of the road.

As for rubbish art, I literally saw this one guy on Worlds Worst Tenants who was making "art" by stapling or nailing dead animals to a frame and calling it "art". I definitely wouldn't call that art, and the guy was about as psychotic as they come, literally trying to attack one of the eviction specialists with a knife for trying to evict him from "his" apartment.

IMO those sort are in the vast minority though, and the vast majority of artists are genuinely adding something of value, and something beautiful to the world. Each with varying degrees of talent and each with his or her own unique style.
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by cowsmanaut »

You stated "a branch of artists, actors". This is all inclusive. Thus all actors fall under your view of my statement, when I actually stated that those who are nothing more than a pretty face are my target. Those who depend almost exclusively on what the chance of good genetics have offered them at birth. To be somewhat fair though, we do depend a fair bit on a persons appearance when passing judgement upon them.. the expectations of how a villain (even an attractive one) should look, and the hero, etc. Just as Nicolas Cage was slated to be superman and yet this caused the entire production to fall to bits and he was later paid to NOT play superman. Simply because he is not people's view of what superman should be. That and a number of people feel he's not a very good actor anyway. This new superman is however closer to the look people expect, though I spent the entire movie thinking.. WTF, why is he so muscular? Has be been bench pressing the moon? come on.. Anyway, there is some value to the person's appearance, certainly, but they should also be able to play the part and continue to suspend my disbelief.

As to your point, I do not think I denied that, as my focus is really on the commercial visual artist. However, less hard.. hmm. Yeah, I think you've missed something there. A lot of the time it's having the right idea at the right time, or being in the right place at the right time. Many skilled actors just don't happen to show up to that interview that would have made them big.. the person that would have given them a chance over someone else, and so they are still getting hired for the "that'll be 3.75 sir" roles as they pass the fake coffee to the lead actor.. as for musicians. Hitting the right sequence of notes, and delivering them to the right audience. Also not easy, and there is an unfortunate beast of an industry waiting to shave every last cent off of any success you gain. Though through the advent of youtube and other indy websites who sell your album, that has been less of an issue, providing you can get the audience yourself. Still not easy though as you need to convince them to not just put your youtube video in their playlist, but actually go buy the album.. Then there's the writer, if you have the right idea, and a writing style people enjoy (note I said style, not skill, as some of them have poor writing skills, but great ideas) you can be the lucky one who sells more than 5000 copies and instead of 10% you get a whopping 12%.. or more than 10000 and you get 15%... woot. Yes, 15% of a million copies is very nice.. and should it be nice enough to make into the next harry potter, you'll make even more. I wouldn't call that less hard though.. as millions of failed, actors, musicians, and writers mill around waiting for their big moment to come. Not because of lack of skill and ability, nor passion.. just a matter of not being lucky enough?

Even mr roadkill artist could have made it big if he got the right buyer to see his work.. there's always someone odd with a lot of cash waiting for a chance to throw it away on something stupid.. well, not stupid in their own minds surely.. but to the vast majority......... 0_0
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Seriously Unserious »

Even mr roadkill artist could have made it big if he got the right buyer to see his work.. there's always someone odd with a lot of cash waiting for a chance to throw it away on something stupid.. well, not stupid in their own minds surely.. but to the vast majority......... 0_0
:lol: that I Seriously doubt. The "art" stank like you wouldn't believe, like, well, rotting dead things. :P The eviction specialists while they were investigating the place were sickened by the smell, and it was that stench that got them called in there to investigate the place in the first place.

Still, I do get your points about being in the right place at the right time. Also, probably the biggest role in whether or not an artist makes it big is that artist's own power of intention. If the artist has a high enough intention level to make things go right, then the artist will make things go right. He will be at that big audition to get a lead role, rather then a "that'll be 3.95" role. She'll make sure her portfolio and finished works are there at that gallery when the big money buyers are there, or make sure to get that gig at the time and place that the major label scouts are at, or will find that one just happens to be at that big gig, etc.

IMO the biggest thing that separates the successful people from the unsuccessful people is the ability to make things go right, rather then just hope thinks go right.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

where does artistics come from?
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Seriously Unserious »

The simple answer is it comes from creativity and using aesthetics to create something beautiful and emotionally moving. ;)
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

ahhh, i see, it's love
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Seriously Unserious »

yup, that's pretty much the end of the emotional spectrum it comes from.

"Art" that does not come from love, enthusiasm and such typically is a corruption of creation, aesthetics and beauty in some way, and a corruption of love and enthusiasm and other similar emotions. This is the stuff that comes from hate, anger, grief and apathy.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

i guess it can be applied to food as well, when it is done with love we can tell, it tastes better. love is tricky though, it causes hate, anger, grief and can drive a person to the brink of destruction. a tricky spirit to handle.

well i love DM, so that must be a good thing as long as those other things it may cause keeps away :) i think everyone here loves DM and we sometimes fight for its attention. you don't want to see the sword i have forged from corbum with the blood of Chaos :twisted:
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: Art vs commerce and intellectual property

Post by Seriously Unserious »

I'm sure that sword would cause more disasters then The Grey Lord's first attempt to get the Power Gem. :P
Post Reply