[ontheotherhand]

Artistic value? The fuck?

"Here's the deal, folks. You do a commercial - you're off the artistic roll call, forever. End of story. Okay? You're another whore at the capitalist gang bang and if you do a commercial, there's a price on your head. Everything you say is suspect and every word that comes out of your mouth is now like a turd falling into my drink."

- Bill Hicks

[mrcharles]

Does the game make you feel? Then it has artistic value.

I felt something playing this game. It has surprisingly good ambiance and seeing a bunch of pixel characters who have accepted their fate and were waiting for death, to me, gave it a level of emotional attachment I did not expect after I read the tag 'advergame'.

One thing you have to realize is that it's very hard to make games nowadays without some kind of income. If you are lucky, you only have to slum it for a few years and then you make a hit on the side. But more often, you have to do whatever it takes, unless you are willing to keep your day job.

I actually still agree with the Bill Hicks quote, but I feel there is some wiggle room when what is produced is actually a game, and in the end, does not fit the constraint of standard advertising.

IMO if more advertising were like this, the world would be a better place, and Bill Hicks would have been less angry.

And here I will quote Tool's Eulogy, which was about Bill Hicks, if you didn't know:

"He had a voice so strong and loud and I Swallowed his facade cuz I'm so Eager to identify with Someone above the ground, Someone who seemed to feel the same, Someone prepared to lead the way, with Someone who would die for me."

Just because a voice is loud and you agree with it, doesn't necessarily mean that it is entirely correct. I love the shit out of Bill Hicks and I still feel the world would be a better place if he had lived long enough to foster the change he felt he needed. But I still don't feel his quote applies to this game.

[d23]

Tool's "Eulogy" wasn't about Bill Hicks. They actually quite liked the guy, put his face in their albums, and quoted him frequently in a positive light.

Regardless, I agree with your points. It's not always bad to sell something if you want to get the rest of your works heard. It's all a big game, and most people have to play to some degree to be able to do what they love.

[ontheotherhand]

"It's all a big game, and most people have to play to some degree to be able to do what they love."

Sure.. but then don't go mixing those two things up. There is work (entertainment or otherwise), and there is art. That some people cry unfair because they want their pie and eat it isn't really my concern.

I didn't argue that the game creator is somehow evil, I just actually feel my brain hurting from dumbness intruding when I read people talk about "artistical merit" in the context of this "game" (the gameplay mechanics are a bit limited to call it that, but that's a whole other can of worms). The response to that? "Yeah, but" and downmoderation. Oh well, oh lol. What else is new.

[mrcharles]

Despite being wrong, I always interpreted Eulogy to being mostly positive, with an undercurrent of anger that was aimed mostly at his untimely death than anything else.

[tonetheman]

Yes yes yes. One hundred times yes. Not sure what it was but the whole experience was great. The combo of the music and graphics felt like art.

[ontheotherhand]

Well, there's many ways to mean the word "art" or "artist", aren't there. Of course something that is skillfully crafted is art "on some level".

On another, the motivation and goal of the creation, at least to me, outweighs such considerations by order of magnitude. And on that level I don't consider that, or much anything really, "art" by any stretch of my imagination.

Which means yes, I would consider the exact same thing art or not art depending on by whom, why and how it was created and presented.

That may not be fair, but it's my firm opinion anyway. Yeah yeah, people gotta eat. I know that. (I do think that technically even that is a decision, but I'll accept that in this in context.) But what people do NOT "absolutely have to" is to consider themselves as artists, or to be considered by me as such. They'll have to settle with mediocre.

[atacrawl]

And here I will quote Tool's Eulogy, which was about Bill Hicks, if you didn't know:

Eulogy was about L. Ron Hubbard.

[Myrmornis]

I also always thought Eulogy was supposed to be about Bill Hicks but it always confused me that it sounded so critical. Thanks for the correction.

[mrcharles]

Interesting, I had always thought that since the album was dedicated to him, that Eulogy was also related. It works either way, really.

[andybak]

I reflect on that Bill Hicks rant occasionally as I get older and wiser.

It was stirring and idealistic when I was in my 20's.

However over the years my instinctive distrust of the world of commerce diminishes as I realise that humans live, swim and breath in commerce. It was here before art-with-a-capital-A and it will outlive it.

The other thing to remember is that art-with-a-capital-A was largely an invention of the Romantic movement. Artist-as-lone-hero and all that. It's not an eternal truth and in fact it creates a fictional view of the Artist that I distrust more over time.

[andybak]

And on a more practical level - good graphic design usually has more artistic merit than whatever the Saatchi's just dropped several million on.

[ti-85]

"Take the money and run," Woody Allen said it best.

[ontheotherhand]

"humans live, swim and breath in commerce. It was here before art-with-a-capital-A and it will outlive it."

Who is talking about commerce? It's about using emotion to lead people to make irrational choices. If you need rice and I farm rice, and I sell you some rice, that's commerce. It has however NOTHING to do with anything Bill Hicks ever ranted about. So don't flatter yourself I'd say, your insight isn't really one.

"The other thing to remember is that art-with-a-capital-A was largely an invention of the Romantic movement"

The idea that washing your hands is a great idea for doctors and in general is also fairly recent; so?

"in fact it creates a fictional view of the Artist"

No, it simply raised the bar. How can it be fictional if people existed and exist that fit the description? That's just wishful thinking on your part so you don't feel too bad for going back to sleep.

[samspot]

It's fictional because the idealism falls apart when you realize you have to find food and shelter somewhere, which costs money. Very few aspiring artists are independently wealthy. Doing a commercial is just another job. If you did a commercial advertising your art gallery would you lose all credibility as an artist? What is the difference between a commercial and a flyer? Do bands who advertise their shows forfeit their claim to be artists? I would also add that it isn't safe to assume someone is trustworthy just because they haven't done any commercials.

You also make the claim that all advertising is about trying to make people make irrational choices. But if I post a billboard that says "Come try our pancakes!", am I really trying to make you behave irrationally?

There is certainly plenty of "bad" advertising, and campaigns that artists would be better off not associating themselves with, but the blanket statement just doesn't fit.

[thenomad]

In that case, there's a pretty lengthy list of artists who need to be struck off.

Michelangelo. Shakespeare. Leonardo Da Vinci. David Lynch. William Wordsworth. Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

All of these people, and many more, made things that were essentially adverts - commissioned pieces designed to promote a particular institution.

[ontheotherhand]

So? It's not like they, or I, would care. Consider them stricken.

[thenomad]

Fair enough. Referencing back to your original comment, if you don't believe any of work from the above names to have artistic value, then we're sufficiently far apart on the definition of the term that there's not really much more point discussing.

[gknoy]

His point is that we (as a society) definitely consider works by Michelangelo (e.g. the Sistine Chapel) to be _definitive_ works of art, despite the fact that they were sponsored. It's a direct refutation of the standpoint that art and commercially-motivated work are entirely separate.

[ontheotherhand]

If an individual disagrees with that view of "society", and I agree with that individual, then just repeating that view of society doesn't really refute anything. It does however explain this deluge of people making themselves known to disagree with something they don't even understand.

[leoedin]

For those of us who aren't raging anti capitalists, it's fairly obvious that something can have artistic merit and be designed to promote something. If you have an actual argument to the contrary that extends beyond "The fuck?", it'd be great to hear it. Quoting a comedian is not really an argument.

[ontheotherhand]

"it's fairly obvious that something can have artistic merit and be designed to promote something"

doesn't constitute an argument either, does it. So there's not really anything there to argue against; just an assertion. Meanwhile, to me it's "fairly obvious" that this ain't art, and therefore "the fuck" is perfectly sufficient.

"Quoting a comedian is not really an argument."

Oh yeah, because a comedian is by definition funny, and not ever insightful.

Good thing people don't react in a butthurt, predictable fashion, or anything. Haha.

[nollidge]

> Good thing people don't react in a butthurt, predictable fashion, or anything.

Kinda spiking the irony meter here. You asserted that there's no artistic value and, what, expected people to accept that as a valuable part of the conversation?

[leoedin]

If your definition of art is only that made with no profit of the artist in mind then your definition excludes a vast amount of what most of the world considers art.

Commercial music? Artists who make a living selling their work? Commissioned pieces? Art doesn't have to be produced by the idle rich and the impoverished and starving. It's hard to define art precisely, but your definition seems to be at odds with the generally accepted one.

[tatsuke95]

>"You're another whore at the capitalist gang bang and if you do a commercial"

Are we to assume that Mr. Hicks never promoted his gigs, and performed them for free?

[ontheotherhand]

What makes you think he considered himself artist, or ranting on stage, or making jokes, art? Quotes please.

[neilk]

This is a lot more like a music video than an ad for McDonald's. It's more of a complementary art form, to expose you to the original in a different medium.

[jacoblyles]

Fuck Bill Hicks. This is cool.

[d23]

Bill Hicks wasn't talking about this. I doubt he would have any disagreement with an artist promoting their own work.

[ontheotherhand]

Nah, you're just infected ^^

[jbooth]

You could just shorten the whole thing to "You're another whore at the capitalist gang bang, period".

Everyone's selling something. Try talking to an actual professional artist and ask them if they're following their dreams and expanding boundaries or if they're mass-producing different variations of the same 2 paintings they've been able to sell consistently in between kissing asses at galleries.

[ontheotherhand]

"try talking to an actual professional artist"

Well duh. However, I see what you did there. Why the arbitrary qualification? Why does it have to be a professional artist, why not an albino one, or someone who only has 8 fingers, or an artist period? Oh right, because then your argument kinda falls on its face.

[jbooth]

Everyone's gotta eat. If professional artists don't live up to your standards of what makes art vs whoring, then who does?

[dorkrawk]

I think you're trying to make a statement about objective artistic value, which arguably doesn't exist.

From this comment all you've really said is that you and Bill Hick (probably) wouldn't think this is art. Nobody here could argue with that. But it says nothing about what art is or who is an artist.

[trentlott]

There is a difference between making something and talking about something.

Bill Hicks was referring to talking about something you basically only have a monetary interest in.