• jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Commercially is the only metric I can measure, so I mean commercially

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That you like it, then it has a meaning to you. Gives you something to think about.

          Massive artistic success: you’re able to talk to other people about the art and they find it interesting too

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s… Better than what you said before, but it pains me that people think that’s the full depth of artistic endeavor, to have given people fodder for small talk.

            Art is a kind of conversation, but it’s not small talk. If you’ve been following that conversation and you bring a new perspective to it that changes how everyone thinks and shapes the conversation from that point onwards, that is what you might call “artistic success”.

            On the other hand if all you’re doing is trying to make money…

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I think you’re struggling with the mix of artistic endeavor and commercial success. For the vast majority of artists they do not exist independent of the need to survive and have money.

              But the games industry, by virtue of it being an industry, needs to make money. So commercial success is the primary target.

              In the envelope of commercially viable projects, people can be artistic, and have demonstrated great feats of art, but the vast majority of output is not moving the dialogue forward.

              Think pieces, conversation pieces, emotionally evocative pieces, they’re all part of the artistic vocabulary, but these are not bi-directional dialogues, the vast majority of artists are dead, and their art is appreciated in the context of the viewer. Hopefully the message is clear, but sometimes especially for abstract art, the message is deliberately ambiguous.

              • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                On the contrary, I think the games industry is struggling with it. Larger developers keep increasing their budgets, and the need for return on investment is making them too risk averse to create anything worth much of a damn. Meanwhile low or no-budget (kick-started) indie titles are making several times their investment while doing really commendable creative work. The profit incentive is self-destructive in art.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nobody knows. People have been making art for several thousands of years and nobody has ever known whether it was any good unless it made a lot of money! Thank goodness we’ve cleared that up, now I’m going to go try and will myself to have an aneurysm