|
|
|
|
|
by OmarShehata
2326 days ago
|
|
I used to agree this, but this leads to what I think is a pernicious belief stated differently: that you can only make "true art" if you're giving it away for free. This comes up a lot when making indie games. That your work is somehow less pure or you had to compromise on your creative vision because you had to monetize it. As a creator you have to make a ton of tradeoffs all the time anyway, since you have a finite amount of time and resources. What if monetizing it actually allows you to achieve the vision you had in mind? Or it helped you understand what your audience cares about and make something more relatable or moving (or go the other direction, disturbing or meant to role them up etc) Why isn't monetizing just another trade-off? What's so special about it? The answer to me: culturally monetizing/greed in art has been seen as making art impure and it's a stigma we need to get over. |
|
I work a bit as a musician, and I would say I often, but not always, create "true art" when I'm hired for a concert.
But it's not the same art I would have made if I got to call all the shots. That doesn't necessarily make it any less good, and it doesn't make it less "true", but it _does_ make it less _mine_. I'm OK with that tradeoff.