erotik video
porno izle

From the internet.

“I would happily write books to give for nothing, and perhaps video games too”

Bullshit. You wont do it – please if you really think this write something and put it up on the internet.

“there can be incentive without money”

So what? The sky is blue as well.

“personal one of affection for both the work-to-be and the people you are creating it for. And without that, the work is worth a whole lot less.”

Crap. That has nothing to do with how people percieve art.

“Are you saying that the creator’s affection for the audience community and work itself is worth nothing?

Yes. In the real world, not in your crack-addled reality of your own brain.

“Are you saying that the creator’s affection for the audience community and work itself is worth nothing?”

Please quote the text where I said that.

“While value is subjective, one nearly universal value is that the creator’s affection for the audience and work itself, in addition to audience participation, is something that is good, which is better to be there than absent.”

Which again, proves jackshit.

On the one hand you’ve said that art that doesn’t reflect the creators values and ideals is *always* crap and now you say that the artist must have affection for his audience. Which is it?

But please, make some art for us and put it up on the internet: according to you it’d make you happy and the only reward you should get is the fact that people look at it.

Actually, you are the one who is confused. Are you saying that the creator’s affection for the audience community and work itself is worth nothing? Only then could you say that it is not better for there to be the audience participation and the caring of the original creator for both the community of audience and the work itself. While value is subjective, one nearly universal value is that the creator’s affection for the audience and work itself, in addition to audience participation, is something that is good, which is better to be there than absent.

Roze

You’re very confused: you equate marketing with exploitation. Marketing is in essence letting people know about something and has nothing to do with the percieved value of it. Please enlighten us how letting people know about something is exploitation. Do you think its a good idea that there is no marketing so no one knows about works of art?

You really seem to be confusing your own taste (your perception) with whether something is “good”, or of high quality, or not. Not everyone has the same tastes as yourself thank god.

Art is “entertainment and amusement” – not wholly so, but that is a subset of the world of art (which is a very broad term in itself).

If a creation appeals to a subset of people then it is a commodity: whether you think it should be or not doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of art is bought and sold.

Some (actually almost all) art requires money. Now you do have a point when you say: “…A return is certainly not what art is about…”. Agreed and most often art that is produced purely for financial gain is considered to be crap by many people – however that certainly doesn’t change the fact that people consider content (art) to be valuable and thus will pay money for it.

If there was no financial returns for art then there would be massively less art produced (artists would spend time earning money in other ways – ie working for someone else). You may think that the reward of others seeing it is enough but most artists recognise they have a commodity to make money from.

Again: can you please produce a movie, write a book or a video game for me and give it to me for nothing?

If that is so, then it needs to change. Art is not “entertainment and amusement.” Art is something that affects people and their lives, and becomes a part of people. Art is not a commodity – rather, it is something that becomes part of living consciousness. And this certainly does not require money. A return is certainly not what art is about – the reward of others seeing it is a reward enough.

Roze

Roze

Roze

If you have half a brain, you would understand what I have said: that, due to this culture of commercialism, everything non-commercial is just pushed aside in favor of the holly-wood types. This is why it is necessary to bring down the current culture in order to replace it with something better.

Second, I really do not see where you got this “appreciate what I can” from. I never talked about what I appreciated – merely the value of the works themselves. True, it is subjective, but people judge works all the time, and therefore there is a common consensus about much of it – one being that commercial culture is pure exploitation. Thus, I am assuming that the masses are of average intelligence, which makes them easy to exploit for the purposes of industrial profit. This means that Tekken, Doom 3, GTA 4, etc. – yes, indeed, they are made by industry to exploit the masses. It is a corrupt industry, one that needs to be taken down.

Roze

I’m sorry, I have to agree with 19, you’re quite incorrect. Anyone, right now, can make a film or any other creative work, and release it under an open license of some sort, so how is it that this is ONLY possible when there is no copyright exactly? Expecting artists to do this is about as absurd as me expecting you to produce a film for me free of charge.

Artists have gained a return of some sort for hundreds of years for producing work that entertains and amuses people.

You seem to have an attitude that artists will provide quality content in a capitalist model of economy. This may be true for a few – sure – but most films require thousands (at least) of dollars to produce – are artists supposed to come up with that themselves.

Roze: “Absent the person from it and his or her thoughts and feelings, it becomes nothing more than meaningless, fake stuff purely to extract money from people, without care to its actual value – cheap, insincere and disingenuous products just to attract and/or impress an audience, uncaring about any real communication of personal thoughts and feelings to the audience.”

There’s so many things wrong with this: there’s so many extremely popular works that don’t have this built in: where do you suppose the “personal thoughts and feelings of the author” are in Tekken, Doom 3 or GTA 4 ? How about Robot Chicken? Also you seem to be assuming that mass audiences are stupid, dumbed down and can’t appreciate what you can which smacks of misplaced elitism and the possiblity that you think your more intelligent than others – classic security blanket for low self-image.

Also, you keep referencing “values” which is an entirely subjective thing and seems to miss the point that sometimes people just want something light, fluffy and meaningless to take them away from their normal lives.

Roze

Roze

Roze