A majority of all artworks in the world, including the ones that are now seen as priceless art, were made in a commercial viewpoint. This includes the work of the most famous artists in the world. You think the Sistine Chapel was painted or built for free ? You think the David in Firenze was sculpted for free ?
Almost no art is pure. People make a living out of it and some love doing it. Games are the same. People do it for their living, and while some loving doing it, them making money out of it isn't a bad thing. That's how the world goes.
It's a very naive viewpoint to suggest or think that when people do something because they want to become rich and that then means the art is worthless.
A lot of artists still now do their art and try selling it, this includes pictures and paintings and sculptures and…. It's not because they try to sell it that it isn't art anymore. Some people want to live of their art rather than do a meaningless job in their opinion.
With games it's the same. In the games industry you need people to sponsor you, because it's not a one-person job to make a whole game. So when you need to feed a 100 people then you can't just do whatever you want and expect it to just work. It doesn't mean that it's any less good or artsy.
You're making a lot of assumptions. If you want to understand where I'm coming from with this, you should really try not to read things into it that I haven't put there myself.
First of all, I never said commercial products/productions were bad - I said I'm not interested in them. I specifically pointed that out, actually.
When you remove the option to express yourself subjectively, it doesn't mean you remove your talent or your ability.
Now, I'm not going into "fine arts" as an expert - because I'm clearly not. I have no real basis for comparison when it comes to those works. I haven't even seen the Sistine Chapel - so I can't comment at all.
People might have a different definition for art than I do - and I don't accept something as "art" because it's referred to in that way by a lot of people. I need to see it for myself and to understand something about it.
I have no idea what motivation the artist behind the Sistine Chapel had, and whether he was free to create his art according to his own vision. If his vision was not compromised by demands of the audience (or the investors) - then it being commercial has no bearing, really. But I can't know.
Even if it was compromised, it wouldn't mean it wasn't beautiful - as I take it it is. Because talent is still present, even under compromised conditions.
Just like the movie Avatar - which is obviously beautiful. A lot of extremely talented and passionate people were behind those wonderful visuals - but the vision was not theirs - really. It was the vision of James Cameron. Now, whether you like the movie or not - I have to say I don't believe for a second it was made from a pure artistic vision. I think it was made because Cameron wanted to make his mark yet again, and show the world how great CGI can look given the right funding - but somewhere along the way, he forgot what movies are all about - which is the story and the characters. Something like that can impress a lot of people - obviously - but it does nothing for me. I think it's incredibly boring and hollow. Maybe he had a pure vision in terms of CGI - but the movie as a whole was what I consider commercial trash.
I'm not sure why you think I'm calling it worthless, though, but I'm not. I'm telling you what I care about and what I don't care about. Obviously, commercial products have value to a lot of people, or they wouldn't be standing in line to pay for them.
It's not exclusive to commercial products - though. It's just that it's one of the most common reasons for compromising a pure vision. Just like seeking popularity, or simply "making a mark" can be a way to compromise your vision.
That's not to say such things can't co-exist - because they can. It's fully possible to be commercial and popular, and yet STILL retain "pure" artistic expression - it's just extremely rare.
Then you talk about selling art AFTER it's been made - and that's something very different. If we assume the art was made without commercial interest - as in not specifically to sell it afterwards - then the act of selling in itself has no bearing on the purity of the art.
But there's no measurement of purity of art. You really have no way of knowing. It's a feeling you get, when you experience something. Be it a movie, a game, or even a painting. You can only take a guess as to why each decision was made - and what the motivation was.
My wish is for people to be motivated only by the vision of the work itself. Not the desire to be popular or the desire to be recognised - or to be rich. I'm still not saying you can't make quality with those desires prevalent - I'm saying I'm not interested in such things.
I think of it like I think of honesty.
When you sit down with someone and you talk about something personal, there are ways to communicate. One way is the forthright and fully honest way - and that is the way I ALWAYS prefer - no matter what. So, if I ask someone if I smell bad, or if I'm too this or too that - I always want the honest answer. I know it can hurt, and I know it can be extremely unpleasant - but that's all I ever want.
Some people prefer other things, and some people prefer people to always be pleasant or to present their points of view in ways that are easy to digest - or comfortable. Some people think that the message can be communicated fully without having to be fully honest and blunt. I don't, though.
It's the same way with art. I don't want an experience specifically designed to be comfortable, or to give me something that isn't exactly what it's supposed to be. If something is meant to be really, really hard - then make it hard. If something is supposed to be incredibly unpleasant - then make it unpleasant. Don't care that the audience might find it too much, or that they might be turned off having to think - or whatever. Do exactly what you want to do.
About games, it's important to remember that I specifically pointed out that games can never be pure. So, it's not like it's a surprise to me that they have to make a living - or that they need financial support to make them happen.
I'm talking about degrees, and when something becomes too commercial to have the core of the vision intact.
Just like we're now hearing about Dragon Age 2. They're talking about why they removed stats from the creation process, and why they're speeding everything up. Things like that.
Now, I can't actually KNOW they're doing it for commercial reasons. Listening to the developers - it sounds like they truly believe the game is the better for it. But what do they really mean by the game being better? Are they talking about the game reaching more people and selling more copies, or are they talking about their vision of the game as they once dreamed about as designers.
That's for the player and the audience to decide.
