[hinkley]

Except they took the Nissan commission. The aren't anti-commercial, they're just commercial averse. Like Google is evil averse. If you're neutral you get to do bad things without being bad.

A lot of people want to be good as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything for it. Really, as long as they don't see themselves as actively engaging in the other direction, they sleep really well at night. They aren't good, they're just normal, but it's enough to maintain the illusion of their self image as a good person. If I'm not an asshole then I must be a good person.

Which I think is why we have so much trouble changing our peers. The moment we bring something up we've already challenged their identity. We've issued an existential threat. We might as well be brandishing a knife.

From the other side, when I give up things for philosophical reasons, some people characterize this as self-destructive behavior. A sign of naivete. Of immaturity. I only know two things. They probably sleep better than I do, and I'll sleep even worse if I don't do these things.

I begin to wonder if it's the case that the only people who are good people will tell you that they aren't. Kind of depressing if true. Think of your favorite person and imagine that you like them better than they like themselves. Harsh.

[SiftedTech]

Being averse is still a good start though? - I was just wondering how long it would take for someone to replicate the technique and sell out...

[hinkley]

In any other industry.

Maybe I'm getting sucked in by stereotypes but it seems like the art community is much more concerned with 'selling out' than most.

On the other hand, a plot device from a scifi book (Tad Williams I think?) has stuck me with the idea of creating slowly evolving graphics. If I were an artist I might get pretty excited about a robot who can paint and repaint a mural for me as many times as I want. Being able to change with the seasons or local events might entice me, regardless of how many ads have done the same thing.