| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Side Quest: Separating the Creator from the Creation |
|
We take a bit of a tangent away from game design issues with this Side Quest as Corwin asks, "Should we separate the creator from his creation?"
<br>
<br>
<br>No, this is definitely not some religious discussion. Rather, I want to consider the issue in both general and perhaps specific terms of whether we should be able to separate the person who creates, or designs something, such as a game, from the actual end product.
<br>
<br>Let me offer a simple example. Very few people actually admire Adolf Hitler. Do so and you will be called a Neo-Nazi or worse. However, he was also an artist. If I were asked to evaluate his artwork, his paintings, should I do it without regard for who Hitler really was, or should that be allowed to colour my perception?
<br>
<br>A further example. There are many famous actors, directors, singers, whatever, who while being basically revolting people from all reports, are superb at their craft. Should I not go to see a particular movie because the star, or the director is a walking piece of filth? This is a difficult question with many implications.
<br>
<br>I certainly, for example, know several people who won’t play music by Wagner because of his anti-semitism. There are probably many others who won’t read books by certain authors no matter how brilliant they may be due to perceived bias in the writer. Should this be the case, especially when it comes to playing computer games?
<br>
<br>While it’s true to say that some people will buy anything from certain designers, it’s also equally true that the opposite is also the case. Shouldn’t we judge a game, like a good book, by its content, rather than by who wrote it? Does a designer so stamp his personality on something we can’t separate the two in any meaningful way?
<br>
<br>Perhaps it’s simply a question of maturity; ours!! We know theoretically that this is what we should do, but find ourselves unable to rise to that standard. Still, is it fair to prejudge something solely on who has written or designed it, whether in a positive or negative way? Shouldn’t we be able to examine a created work in a totally objective manner and come to conclusions about it based totally on the work and not on the person behind the work? Difficult questions to be sure. What do you think? |
Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:10 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
On an intellectual level, I really can't come to a final conclusion but I lean toward agreeing that the two should be separated. In reality, I just can't do it if I find the creator that offensive/distasteful. This is probably a failing but that's my reality.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:12 am |
|
|
Twinfalls
Guest
|
I hear this crop up most often when people speak of the films of Woody Allen, and to a lesser extent, Roman Polanski. On more than one occasion someone's said "I don't see want to see a movie by him because he's a child molester"
Which is a fair personal prerogative. I used to feel it was a selective application of morals to a purchasing decision, when for example similar reasoning was never applied to buying product sold cheaply through exploitation of third world labour, but this seems to have changed over the last decade with more awareness of these issues now.
For me, unless the very making of art is immoral (eg child exploitation for a movie), it must be evaluated without regard to the morals/criminality of the artist. Especially if it is real art, and not commerce, such is its importance especially today. Real art is a *reflection* of the good and bad stuff in the artist - and so reflects upon society. It is also politically dangerous to create a culture of voluntary moral censorship of art.
More challenging is a situation where art results from crime or immorality itself. Say someone is killed in the course of making a great work of art, such as for a painting. Once the perpertrator is caught and put in jail, are we obliged to throw the painting away? |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:22 pm |
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
Re: Hitler's Art and Actors' movies
These two aren't comparable. If you evaluate Hitler's artwork, you aren't giving him money. If you go to see the latest Alec Baldwin movie, you ARE contributing money to him. I find no problem with dispassionately judging Hitler's art, since you don't help him in the process. If you hate a particular actor's politics (Baldwin, for example), then you have a choice to make. You can avoid the movie, even though you like his acting, because you don't want to help him out financially (however small a contribution it may be). You can convince yourself that "the 0000.025 cents of my $8 that actually ends up in Mr. Baldwin's hands doesn't really matter" and go see the film anyway. Or, thanks to the wonderful age we live in, you can see his work without paying for it. I have always been a proponent of the first course of action.
quote:
Originally posted by Twinfalls
More challenging is a situation where art results from crime or immorality itself. Say someone is killed in the course of making a great work of art, such as for a painting. Once the perpertrator is caught and put in jail, are we obliged to throw the painting away?
How about the medical knowledge gained by the torture/testing on POWs by the Japanese during WW2? Seems to be a similar situation to what you're describing. I'm not providing an answer. Merely asking the question. |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:42 pm |
|
|
Gorno
Village Dweller
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 2
|
| You cannot always separate the art from the artist |
|
In many cases you cannot separate the artist from his art. For example, Camus and "The Stranger". The art is the artist's view. Some artist's views can be repugnant to another person. It is not necessarily a weakness to reject another's view you may find repugnant. It can be a mark of strength, discerning truth from falsehood.
This is too much a tangent from games though unless we start discusssing games. Do any games you can think of represent a repugnant view to you that would be an obstacle to purchasing games from that artist in the future?[/spoiler]
_________________
I can only wallow in the exquisite comfort of my own exactitude. --G.K. Chesterton (The Man Who was Thursday) |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:58 pm |
|
|
tolgerias
High Emperor
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 770
Location: The Netherlands |
hi there Gorno, good to see new users around the place!
I find this a pretty hard subject, I think it is very important to see how much the artists' views/lifestyle affects the art. Neo-nazis making music for example, you bet the music will be influenced by their background, and then creation and creator are surely linked. But when no such link is there I can appreciate something even if I despice the creator.
But it is a very difficult subject, often the line can't be drawn clearly so a general rul for this subject will never work, you'll have to consider each case seperately.
_________________
If you can't debate without namecalling then don't bother visiting us. -Myrthos |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:52 pm |
|
|
Oneiromancer
Village Dweller
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 4
|
It seems to me that the Side Quest author isn't fully separated from his subject either. Isn't Corwin one of the main fans of Grimoire, whose author, Cleve Blakemore, has views which have pissed off a lot of people? It seems kind of funny that this piece of information was never touched upon, since it might color people's opinions. Which is the whole point, after all! 
Personally, I don't agree with almost any of Cleve's opinions that I've read. But I'm sure as hell going to try Grimoire when (if) it comes out. If he doesn't preach to me in his game, then I'll judge it based on how fun I find it. However, if I was able to make myself continue reading Cerebus by Dave Sim all the way to the end, I think I can handle a little personal opinion content in a video game. /shrug
Game on,
The Oneiromancer |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:07 pm |
|
|
WolfGrim
Guest
|
| easy answer for me - can't seperate |
|
You can't seperate art from the creator, for me at least. Art comes from the person and is part of who they are. Books, music, poetry, scultpure, music, etc ... it is all created by someone, who in turn has been shaped and created by the world they interact it.
you can consider art seperately of course, thats very common. I seldom know who created something that I might appreciate. However the creator and his/her creations are intimately tied.
You can appreciate art without knowing anything about its creator but you never fully "see" it that way. Knowing some of who the creator is helps to further define the creation.
Bottom line for me is that I will an can appreaciate a creation regardless of the creator ... however once I know something about the creator that can change my view on the creation itself ... and I think that is natural and right ... because I now have a more comprehesive understanding of the creation in question.
I am one of those people who won't watch a movie with a person I dislike (consider bad). I would not read a book, or buy art o rlisten to music if I knew the creator was someone I did not approve off strongly.
For me its like if someone gave me a gift of $500. If I knew or found out that they got the money by immoral means I would have rejected it or would give it back. |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:45 pm |
|
|
Wolfgrim
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oneiromancer
It seems to me that the Side Quest author isn't fully separated from his subject either. Isn't Corwin one of the main fans of Grimoire, whose author, Cleve Blakemore, has views which have pissed off a lot of people? It seems kind of funny that this piece of information was never touched upon, since it might color people's opinions. Which is the whole point, after all!
Personally, I don't agree with almost any of Cleve's opinions that I've read. But I'm sure as hell going to try Grimoire when (if) it comes out. If he doesn't preach to me in his game, then I'll judge it based on how fun I find it. However, if I was able to make myself continue reading Cerebus by Dave Sim all the way to the end, I think I can handle a little personal opinion content in a video game. /shrug
Game on,
The Oneiromancer
Speaking of games ... this does remind me that I use to play Horizons then after I read all about what happened in upper management with Dave Bowman it left a very bad taset in my mouth. Sure I do not know the truth of the matter but after everythng i read and considered my own view was that it was very shady. Because of this I stopped playing, just couldn't show my support of those practices.
There is a reason why people say that "ignorance is bliss", however in would rather be informed (on any thing) then unknowingly contribute/support anyone who I morally disagree with. |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:48 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
@Oneiromancer While it was people's reactions to Cleve and Grimoire that sowed the seeds of this topic for me, I did NOT want this to deteriorate into another bash Cleve thread. Rather, I hoped for the level of intellectual discussion that has, so far, been generated. That's why I chose not to mention that game in my original post. For me, one sign of being an 'adult' is the ability to separate the two things, at least to some extent. I know, for example, that several people from the Codex do not like me, simply because as part of my duties here I report on Grimoire. Now, one of their staff members is also developing a game. When it is released, I hope that I can approach it in a totally unbiased manner. It would IMO, be childish of me to bash a game purely because of a disagreement between me and the staff of the Codex. All I have ever asked is that people judge a game such as Grimoire on its own merits, rather than on the merits of its developer. Need I mention Dungeon Lords!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:36 pm |
|
|
Twinfalls
Guest
|
Doh! (slaps forehead). There I was, naive little me, thinking this was a real topic.
Corwin, you naughty thing. This is all just about helping you deal with those niggling Cleve guilty-thoughts?
Here's what's needed. |
|
Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:46 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
What I hate is the sly politically infused art. Especially aimed at kids. Cartoons are trying to turn my kid into a tree hugging hippy. I blaim Disney for PETA. I guess thats why I really enjoy the, "When animals attack" shows.
Separating the creator from the creation is possible for me as long as the two don't go hand and hand, like Moore's films. The creation and creator are one and the same. I love the Beasty Boys, even though they are sissy-pansies now. I can watch a movie with an actor I hate, if the movie is a movie and not trying to be a soapbox.
And when it comes to games, I would play anything that had good, challenging (tb of course) combat abd was a real rpg. Even if it was about shopping and pink dresses and gay gnomes and girl chatter. That is until the hippies get a hold of rpgs and remove all the combat. I think Twinfalls is actually working on a bill to do that as we speak.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:15 am |
|
|
Twinfalls
Guest
|
I'm actually working on a bill to have the US National Anthem replaced with 'In the Navy' by The Village People, and the US flag replaced with this.
I actually agree with Roqua to a certain extent, in that art which attempts overt politicism ceases to be art. It's also boring when it's predictable - like we really need another gay-assed "metaphor for the Iraq Invasion and bad, bad Dubya" in cartoons and movies. It's just not. Fucking. Original. And originality should be essential to art.
What annoys me more however, is the ease with which the 'Left-Wing' tag is placed upon anything soft-liberal (eg opposition to war, or to strong action against Islamic fundamentalism). To me, being weak and soft is not 'Left'. 'Left' is about reducing the concentration of power, and that is all.
One should also realise that right-wing politics is so prevalent in books and films and games that it often cannot be seen. Most fantasy stories and worlds involve 'Good Kings' and 'Bad Kings'. Very, very few ask 'why have a King at all?'
A great fantasy film is the movie 'Dragonslayer'. In that one, the King is an ordinary person, weak-willed and motivated by self-interest. He's not 'evil', he's just human. The story is a very good illustration of why power should never be handed to people simply because of their lineage, but should always be distributed democratically. |
|
Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:12 pm |
|
|
Twinfalls
Guest
|
Sorry, I should say 'Art which attempts overt politicism can easily cease to be art.'
Also I didn't mean opposition to war is always 'soft liberal', more so that type of knee-jerk political stance based solely on opposition to war no matter what the circumstances.
I really should sign up so I can edit....  |
|
Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:53 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
