So again I ask… was John Cage’s “4’33"” “necessary”? What about Banksy’s “Love is in the Bin”?, William Gibson’s “Agrippa”, Sol LeWitt’s Wall Drawings, or Tino Sehgal’s “Constructed Situations”?
My point is that nothing about a piece of art needs to: be “necessary”, fair, rational, permanent, OR please any audience. How, when, where, and IF art is observed or interacted with at all, is at the SOLE DISCRETION of its creators and their appointed licensors.
It’s likely that every single video game you have ever purchased held a disclaimer that the software was being licensed, not sold. That you did not read/were not aware of the meaning of that license is irrelevant to the legal definition, nor the moral authority of the artist. Period.
Have you produced or sold any creative works yourself?
No, I should have clarified better. I was wondering about your term of the word “necessary” in this sentence.
It is a necessary course correction back to the historical norm of the amphitheater.
What makes you believe that returning to this historical norm is necessary?
SOLE DISCRETION of its creators and their appointed licensors.
It is up to the customer if they want to engage with such works and the terms they are bound by, right? A transaction is a two way street? An EULA is a two way street?
What makes you believe that returning to this historical norm is necessary?
Mostly the fact that television, film, and music capitalists were incentivized to essentially steal intellectual labor from creators in the same way that industrialists were stealing surplus labor value from factory workers.
It is the sole discretion of the artist how, when, where, and IF their art is consumed at all. If you didn’t create something you have no legal or moral authority over how it is stored, displayed, interacted with, or commercialized. If you have a problem with how a particular artist does any one of those things, then the solution is to not consume their art, not demand that they adapt their creative process to accommodate your preferences.
then the solution is to not consume their art, not demand that they adapt their creative process to accommodate your preferences.
Then (hypothetically, bear with me here), if by the hand of the free market and general consumer sentiment, the only successful video games were the ones that had reasonable end of life plans, and the one that didn’t faded out into irrelevancy, couldn’t get money since nobody bought them, etc, that would be OK by you, right?
If a thing stops being something I want to engage with, I stop engaging. Demanding that everything that has ever existed, must continue to exist in exactly the fashion of my preference would seem like a mental illness.
Because it establishes that the creator’s authority is not absolute and the consumer has quite a bit of sway in how products are created and commercialized. Unless you are one of such people who believe indirect coercion of the free market doesn’t count as coercion? If the creator of a for-profit work must (more or less) present their work in a specific way otherwise no-body will buy it, that is coercion and a slight to the creator’s authority, no?
The customer I imagine. They are the other side of the equation right?
So again I ask… was John Cage’s “4’33"” “necessary”? What about Banksy’s “Love is in the Bin”?, William Gibson’s “Agrippa”, Sol LeWitt’s Wall Drawings, or Tino Sehgal’s “Constructed Situations”?
My point is that nothing about a piece of art needs to: be “necessary”, fair, rational, permanent, OR please any audience. How, when, where, and IF art is observed or interacted with at all, is at the SOLE DISCRETION of its creators and their appointed licensors.
It’s likely that every single video game you have ever purchased held a disclaimer that the software was being licensed, not sold. That you did not read/were not aware of the meaning of that license is irrelevant to the legal definition, nor the moral authority of the artist. Period.
Have you produced or sold any creative works yourself?
No, I should have clarified better. I was wondering about your term of the word “necessary” in this sentence.
What makes you believe that returning to this historical norm is necessary?
It is up to the customer if they want to engage with such works and the terms they are bound by, right? A transaction is a two way street? An EULA is a two way street?
Mostly the fact that television, film, and music capitalists were incentivized to essentially steal intellectual labor from creators in the same way that industrialists were stealing surplus labor value from factory workers.
It is the sole discretion of the artist how, when, where, and IF their art is consumed at all. If you didn’t create something you have no legal or moral authority over how it is stored, displayed, interacted with, or commercialized. If you have a problem with how a particular artist does any one of those things, then the solution is to not consume their art, not demand that they adapt their creative process to accommodate your preferences.
Then (hypothetically, bear with me here), if by the hand of the free market and general consumer sentiment, the only successful video games were the ones that had reasonable end of life plans, and the one that didn’t faded out into irrelevancy, couldn’t get money since nobody bought them, etc, that would be OK by you, right?
Why would I care?
If a thing stops being something I want to engage with, I stop engaging. Demanding that everything that has ever existed, must continue to exist in exactly the fashion of my preference would seem like a mental illness.
Because it establishes that the creator’s authority is not absolute and the consumer has quite a bit of sway in how products are created and commercialized. Unless you are one of such people who believe indirect coercion of the free market doesn’t count as coercion? If the creator of a for-profit work must (more or less) present their work in a specific way otherwise no-body will buy it, that is coercion and a slight to the creator’s authority, no?
The creator can continue to produce their work in whatever way they want. Art does not require an observer to exist or be valuable.
I appreciate that sentiment, but let’s stay on topic. This and the original article, movement, etc, are for commercial ventures no?