OP
OP
You can argue that on the basis of the idea' merits.
But saying the ideas have merit because they were created by an artist is dumb, which is what this particular appeal to authority essentially argues.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Worthlessness of The Artist's Vision
- Thread starter Nepenthe
- Start date
But saying the ideas have merit because they were created by an artist is dumb, which is what this particular appeal to authority essentially argues.
It's not being used to shut down discourse in general, it's being used to respond to the notion that the criticism is of a kind that the developers must take into account.
The argument is that the ideas have merit because the artist put it in their own art. It's their creation; within the context of their creation their ideas do have more merit than yours.
OP
OP
Talk about strawman. I've never seen anyone in the history of this forum argue that any criticism is obligated to be listened to. It's kind of the caveat of free speech.
Or maybe when someone says that they don't want to compromise an artist's vision they are referencing how many elements are closely married to each other. When I see people reference Miyazaki's vision, it isn't used as an appeal to authority. When I see it, it is often being used as a way to say that the design of his games hinges on a very careful, very deliberate, balance. A balance that would be (theoretically) toppled by some of the "suggestions" people give to make the game better. A balance that these people cherish.
Human beings are fundamentally imperfect. Sometimes we use imperfect language to convey our thoughts. I personally steer away from the "artistic vision" argument because I am a strong proponent of Barthes. However, that is due to my educational background. Different people will have different backgrounds and will phrase their thoughts differently as a direct result.
Unless you are talking about REALLY SMALL indie Dev teams, I don't think artistic vision is all that in games. Like even Death Stranding still have to sell SOME COPIES to justify it's budget so it cannot be a comodore64 looking WarioWare clone about gender dysphoria and the troubles of the bureocracy behind it
Because that would give a huge bankruptcy to everyone that invested money on it
Because that would give a huge bankruptcy to everyone that invested money on it
That seems like a very odd and limiting definition of art.
Why wouldn't, say, a game about contrasting existential dread in with the feeling of accomplishment not be art?
Is it wrong for a person to see artistic vision as the driving force behind art, and as ultimately the most important thing? I am not saying that this position is the right one or the best one, but it is a valid position to hold that isn't a priori bad. For some, that is where the debate ends.
Last edited:
To be fair, I don't think many creators are telling people that either. They may just not be implementing every suggestion that comes from criticism.
Is that not what the "VALID CRITICISM" posts all over this site are? This has happened to y'all directly when the admins tried to segment the boards last year and the thread about it was absolutely filled with pages and pages of "WHY IS NOBODY ADDRESSING MY VALID COMPLAINTS" when the team wasn't responding in a manner people preferred.
If we take for truth that all the stuff here is just opinion, what makes certain criticism more valid than others, and what does it mean that they're more valid - and not even that they're more valid, but that there is a need to point out that they're more valid - if not that there is an expectation that said criticisms be directly addressed as opposed to others?
On the whole, though, I agree with you that this is all a conversation and people aren't particularly skilled at navigating it. Wish it were easier to help make it less of a chore for everyone.
I would argue yes, because if you really have nothing but that backing you, then...
1. Your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy
2. you are negating the concept of criticism itself. No criticism has any teeth to it if it's all justified because someone wanted it to be done. It doesn't matter how bad something is (like the Room) or if it's actively harmful to society (like nazi propoganda), it would all fall flat under this excuse.
No one reasonable here is acting like artists need to be strongarmed into doing anything. Not the OP and not me. Artists should be allowed to (and for the most part currently are allowed to, I want to stress) make what they want.
They do not, however, need to be respected when they make bad decisions.
I'm referring to people framing their subjective criticisms in objective terms.
It would be a straw man if I suggested that people were framing their arguments as if the law compelled them to be heard, sure. But I'm not. That would be absurd.
OP
OP
If that is the case then my argument still holds on the basis of a linguistic argument, which is also fair (see the discussion about the term "females"). People are using language I fundamentally find disagreeable and insulting to me as an artist. I think the phrase puts too much positive emphasis on something that is neutral and fleeting.
If you want to talk about how a game has a tightly-woven design where various mechanics and elements form a greater soul, God bless you. Go for it. It's how I argue in support of my favorite games. If you start arguing however that the artist's vision shouldn't be infringed upon because it's sacred, I think you're ironically crossing a line that interrupts how artists and audiences have always communicated with each other.
Last edited:
I am not talking about what it is, I am saying that the amount of people with their asses on the line makes it weird to have a single artistic vision since that vision is influenced by lots of people with zero artistic interests in line
Kojima has unprecedented liberty, but he STILL have to show the bills to the investors in the end of the day
OP
OP
I find this a little pedantic. Framing an opinion in objective terms doesn't bother me because any statement that isn't an actual fact automatically falls into the realm of subjectivity. Like, if I say "Mario Kart 8 is awesome," are we really gonna fight because the "I think" is parenthetical???
like i said earlier, you can't have meaningful criticism for something that is "not there". you can only critique a game, or at least should only critique a game in itself. The features that the game has, how they are implemented etc.
for example, many people for years have been asking for a female protagonist in Grand Theft Auto, say GTA 6, again, goes with only male characters. You can be upset with Rockstar, you can criticize Rockstar themselves. You can boycott GTA 6, rant about it etc.
but the criticism of "there's not a female protagonist" should not go against the game itself. Same with this Sekiro thing.
if Sekiro had a "easy" mode, but wasn't implemented well then you can criticize it, but it shouldn't be criticized for a feature it does not have
for example, many people for years have been asking for a female protagonist in Grand Theft Auto, say GTA 6, again, goes with only male characters. You can be upset with Rockstar, you can criticize Rockstar themselves. You can boycott GTA 6, rant about it etc.
but the criticism of "there's not a female protagonist" should not go against the game itself. Same with this Sekiro thing.
if Sekiro had a "easy" mode, but wasn't implemented well then you can criticize it, but it shouldn't be criticized for a feature it does not have
That just seems dismissive. Yes, to continue making games you have to show a return and collaborative efforts will often mean creative compromise, but creative compromise != creative bankruptcy. Leads exist for a reason. Input isn't singular, but decisions aren't shared equally and input from others can enhance a goal just as much as they can detract from it.
It's not really the artist that is at the core of this argument though. It's apparently whether it's proper to take what we know about what something was trying to do and saying whether a controversial element achieves that, or whether such an evaluation can hold any merit if the evaluator was trying to get the same thing out of a work.
Yeah there's actually a huge difference depending on the context, for instance that thread yesterday "can somebody explain to me why eastern gameplay is VASTLY suprior to western gameplay?" And the backlash was immediate.
Appeal to authority ? How so? If someone values artistic vision above other considerations, that is their prerogative and they are within their rights to hold that position. & I don't see how that negates criticism, unless they are trying to force everyone else think the way they do.
I am merely stating that a debate can end because one party see artistic vision as preeminent while the other does not with neither party being 'wrong'.
I said this exact same thing the other week, just not as well. People tend to emphasize the individuals "vision" too because it sounds more sacred than it being a combination of the efforts of hundreds of developers and various leads in different departments. This putting down success or failure to one individual even if he or she is the lead is ridiculous.
Games aren't movies or music you aren't dealing with a handful of people between a lead and the final product too.
Games aren't movies or music you aren't dealing with a handful of people between a lead and the final product too.
Well, I mean, I wasn't agreeing, so much as saying "Nep, you KNOW people are gonna be that pedantic"
As far as that thread title goes, even if the thread maker thought and was trying to make an objective statement with that, it doesn't at it's core change it's subjective nature and I would simply respond as if they wrote "I think Eastern Gameplay is VASTLY suprior to western gameplay".
Good AAA games tend to not come from leaderless devs. Things don't become directionless because of collaboration and nothing gets built in a vacuum. To undersell the role of determining the nature, scope and tone of a project and abstract that from the end result seems strange to me.
Well if you're going to make a thread on a forum where people WILL be pedantic, you might as well avoid framing an opinion, especially a controversial one, objectively.
The problem is that we can't know if an element was a conscious (or subconscious) choice of the auteur or something forced by the investors.
We can't know how far is artistic vision and how deep is the people in suits.
So most discussions about artistic vision are meaningless if we can't know how much the vagina bones is because the auteur is a pervert and how much is because otakus are easier turned into whales
It's an appeal to authority because you literally described the basic components of it. All it does is say "That person is the authority that dictates truth" and then goes along with whatever they say, even if it's wrong by any other metric. If you describe someone who holds an artist's vision as pre-emminent, then it's a negation of criticism because nothing but the decision of the author is valid under this framework. It doesn't matter how stupid, wrong, or erroneous, if the artist decides on it, it's beyond reproach.
The debate can end, but that doesn't mean neither party was wrong. And given that what your describing essentially comes down to what is universally recognized as a fallacy, I would say that one party in particular is pretty wrong. It just doesn't take much debate for either party to decide if having a debate with someone is worth it.
Fine, but that's more of a rhetorical issue than an artistic one.
We have an obsession with the idea of the auteur. This thread reminds me for one of the reasons I admire the Houser brothers so much. They might arrogant about some things, but one of the things I admire alot about them is that they stay out of the spotlight. They have no twitter, facebook, they hardly do any interviews (there's only a few videos of them speaking on youtube) they always promoted Rockstar ahead of themselves. Rockstar is what makes these games, not us. The Housers are legends of the industry, but they realize that gaming is a full effort and that they wouldn't be where they were without the Benz or the thousands of talented workers at Rockstar.
Threads like that are hopeless because they are very transparently aimed at elevating the status of one group versus another, rather than engendering actual discussion. Putting "I feel" clauses into them aren't going to help. "I feel that you suck" is still not a good conversation starter.
Love this post. Exactly what I saw here recently. Its another level when someone posts one interview from the man across different threads more than 10 times in each thread.
We got it the first time and if you didn't get the hint, we disagreed with you. No "vision" is infailable and must be respected because you say it should be and that it always should be seen as the final word, always. That's dogma.
We can't, but we can sometimes guess by what may lay at odds with the obvious direction of "suits" and what doesn't at times. And going back to the argument that started this as a counter example, so many people have listed sales as a pro for easy modes in from games. We can probably guess where the prevailing decision came from (on top of them just out and saying it).
It's not always so cut and dry, sure. Sometimes it is. And such a case leaning towards the latter is what got us here.
Last edited:
It's not about adhering to the general consensus, it's that the general consensus is what, in the end, determines how a work of art is interpreted. The author has no control over his work after he releases it to the public.
It's not making the art, but it's determining its worth. Moby Dick is a great example of this. It was basically ignored at launch, but resonated truly in a post-WWI world, 60-70 years later. Its status as a classic is has to do with how it was received and when, and "Melville's vision" really didn't matter, like at all. We can't even be sure if what we understand of Moby Dick was even intended, and it doesn't really matter if it was or wasn't.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere though. At some point developers have to use their own talent and creative process to make something and we can't always have a crowdsourced collective opinion about what that product should be. Focused grouped products will end up in the same place as products that receive no criticizm. Homoginized and devoid of indeviduality. It's important for developers to have their ear to the ground to the wants and needs of its patrons but we also can't assume that every consumer knows what's best for every product. I would say you average consumer doesnt know a thing about game development and would probably have mostly horrible ideas for how games should work. There has to be a balance.
I'm not really seeing your point, if you're actually reading Moby Dick, Melville's writing is really the only thing that matters, not it's reputation.
My thoughts almost exactly. I'm personally interested in the audience reaction to something I've worked on as far as gauging how effectively what I thought I was saying came across, but not at all when it comes to 'what I should have said instead'.
I belive that developers, directors, artists and programmers all come together to create something special when they have a specific idea that they want to implement and see to fruition, that could not be made otherwise with outside forces attempting to pull them in different directions. This is specifically the criticism of publishers injecting their own wants for games onto developers.
I don't mean to "go after" the thrust of your argument OP, because i understand where your coming from. I critisize books, TV shows and all sorts of media all the time. If a manga is going off the rails, i'll critisize the author for whatever it is i think they dropped the ball on. There is no excuse like "this is how the author wanted it so he or she can't be critisized".
At the same time however, that with media (especially with a game), i think its important to understand that there is a difference between criticizing a game's content because its not to a personal taste, and criticism having to do with the disagreement between an inherent 'idea' of the development staff which forms the basis of the game and forms its distinction to other works.
Both of these things are valid, but i think the latter is something that...should be valued, even if you dont feel like its above reproach.
I don't mean to "go after" the thrust of your argument OP, because i understand where your coming from. I critisize books, TV shows and all sorts of media all the time. If a manga is going off the rails, i'll critisize the author for whatever it is i think they dropped the ball on. There is no excuse like "this is how the author wanted it so he or she can't be critisized".
At the same time however, that with media (especially with a game), i think its important to understand that there is a difference between criticizing a game's content because its not to a personal taste, and criticism having to do with the disagreement between an inherent 'idea' of the development staff which forms the basis of the game and forms its distinction to other works.
Both of these things are valid, but i think the latter is something that...should be valued, even if you dont feel like its above reproach.
I'm not talking about reputation, I'm talking about resonating with the audience. We can't ever expect to know what Melville intended or what his vision was, only that it resonated with a certain audience at a certain time. Might be that the reason why Moby Dick is adored has nothing to do with what Melville envisioned.
An extreme example of vison vs. audience would be The Room.
OP
OP
I agree.
I think an artist has primary agency over the work.
But that agency includes the ability to listen to audience member feedback.
Again, if artists were to take a stance that their vision is impregnable and permanent, making things like games and movies would literally be impossible.
When gamers in particular try to appeal to the quality of an idea by citing the artist's vision, what they argue for is- to me- fundamentally against the nature of a collaborative work.
There are plenty of better arguments to make in favor of the merits of an idea than "artists should be allowed to do whatever they want without interference from the audience!"
You mischaracterised my position and (I think) believe there is a correct way of seeing/evaluating art. Since I do not, and I allow for others to ignore or value artistic intent according to their aesthetic and philosophical beliefs, I guess we'll just have to disagree.
It's not a mischaracterization, you wrote out a textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.
For some reason I'm finding it difficult to express my disagreement with that line of thought. I want to say that the late acclaim of his novel probably had nothing to do with some sort of failure in communicating his vision, it's more likely that his vision had greater appeal to people reading at that point in time, or perhaps even more likely, it was luck. Most successful art is received positively because the artist's vision was powerful and well communicated, not because it incidentally had some unintentional meaning. To say that an artist's vision is "worthless" doesn't really make sense for that reason. Might be worth mentioning that I don't make art collaboratively, and most of my experience is in fine arts and museum styled work, so I feel sort of disconnected from artists that work on commercial products and with teams.
Last edited:
This is one of the best threads I've ever read on Era coupled with some of the worst replies (not from the OP). Kudos!
OP
OP
Aesthetic choice is often its own form of gatekeeping. When I was younger, i was a composer. The music I made appealed to some listeners and not to others based on what instruments, pitches, forms etc. I chose. I could often predict those divisions. Games have a similar phenomenon present in them as well.
The calculus of creation is complicated and the idea of the death of the author is itself a critique-able critique.
Including an easy mode in a game is a valid artistic choice, but so is the decision to exclude one, whether made as a tradeoff in production resources or pursuit of a directorial vision.
The critique that there ought to be an easy mode is a viable critique, but it is not the final, or only viable critique.
I feel differently about accessibility options, but I think that comes from a different artistic world than the conversation about difficulty options.
I'm not so sure hot-button design choices exist outside of authorial or directorial vision all the time, but I definitely agree that they often do.
The calculus of creation is complicated and the idea of the death of the author is itself a critique-able critique.
Including an easy mode in a game is a valid artistic choice, but so is the decision to exclude one, whether made as a tradeoff in production resources or pursuit of a directorial vision.
The critique that there ought to be an easy mode is a viable critique, but it is not the final, or only viable critique.
I feel differently about accessibility options, but I think that comes from a different artistic world than the conversation about difficulty options.
I'm not so sure hot-button design choices exist outside of authorial or directorial vision all the time, but I definitely agree that they often do.
Last edited:
Artists aren't immune from criticism, obviously. But criticism of art should address artistic failures. If a game's difficulty is poorly done, if it's arbitrary or unfair, that's an artistic failure. "The game is too hard for some people" is not an artistic failure. When people say this, they seem to think that difficulty is nothing but an annoying hindrance to the real art, which is the story or the characters or exploring the world. That's not true. The entire experience is the art, and difficulty is an integral element of it, an element that the artist tunes deliberately to create a certain experience.
Game creators manipulate difficulty to make players feel the way they want them to feel at certain moments. "I want the player to feel in awe of this boss." "I want the player to be afraid of this enemy." "I want the player to feel nervous in this room." "I want the player to feel accomplished when they've made it through this area." If game creators feel protective of the experience they've labored over and fine-tuned to be a certain way and to provoke certain emotions at certain times, I think they should have a right to feel that way. This is a right that we readily grant to painters, musicians, filmmakers, and writers. We should extend it to game designers too.
Game creators manipulate difficulty to make players feel the way they want them to feel at certain moments. "I want the player to feel in awe of this boss." "I want the player to be afraid of this enemy." "I want the player to feel nervous in this room." "I want the player to feel accomplished when they've made it through this area." If game creators feel protective of the experience they've labored over and fine-tuned to be a certain way and to provoke certain emotions at certain times, I think they should have a right to feel that way. This is a right that we readily grant to painters, musicians, filmmakers, and writers. We should extend it to game designers too.