Editorial J. E. Sawyer on Art and Appreciation

[Zed]

Tags: J.E. Sawyer; Obsidian Entertainment

Obsidian Entertainment's Josh Sawyer, currently working on an unannounced title, wrote a blog entry called Art and Appreciation. He tells us a bit about his family and background, his view on what qualifies as art, and the interaction between artists and audience.

After growing up with a sculptor; working with video game artists, writers, and musicians, for over a decade; and living with a traditional painter for almost as long, I developed a maxim for how I would approach creative work: Do anything you want to do in life. Just don't expect anyone to pay you or respect you for it.

This, to me, is the razor. It's the distillation of any creative struggle with the audience: is the critical or financial approval of the audience worth making a creative choice you think is inferior? The audience may change: your co-workers, your boss, your client, your lover, your mother, the critics, the public. You give different audiences different weight, sometimes capriciously, sometimes rationally. Different issues may weigh on you more heavily than others. Sometimes it's easy to let go. Sometimes it hurts like hell. Sometimes you won't budge on principle. Sometimes you won't budge because fuck you, idiot.​

Why don't you read it?

 

[Surf Solar]

LOL. I made a rant about this very issue some days ago an fecebook and know he reads them sometimes. , Josh. Will read the full one when I am home

 

[Peter]

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Stop talking about "entitlement".

A pro spoke against the e-word :D .

 

[Angthoron]

A pretty good post, even though I had to sadly skim through it, yay limited internet access.

One thing I'd like to add in regards to the "Art" defence is that we live in this period of art called post(post)modernism. Current art theory says that the Artist/author is dead - in other words, the role of filling the work of art with content falls to the audience. Audience is therefore free to call the work of art utter and complete shit, say that it's about anal sex and beastiality and otherwise completely disregard the artist. Hell, the audience can declare art a non-art and a non-art an art at any moment and guess what, they would be right. So, trying to use art as an excuse while trying to appear modern and hip is pretty retarded and only works on people that have no fucking clue what art is.

/artfag

 

[Volrath]

Where's 1eyedking?

 

[Nope]

Hell, the audience can declare art a non-art and a non-art an art at any moment and guess what, they would be right.

I was under the impression that the death of the author was just an emotional argument from Barthes that lit critics, sociologists and artfags latched on to so they could claim to be objectively right in overanalyzing things even when the author of a work tells them they're flat-out wrong.
Not that the term art seems to hold much value anymore beyond sparking internet flamewars on whose pet definition is the correct one.

 

[Radisshu]

Arguing over what art "really" is, is ridiculous. It's a categorical term created by people, and as such there is no way to find "real" art, objectively; as opposed to how it is possible to find a "real" horse or a "real" carbon atom, objects we simply named.

 

[SCO]

Oh boy here come the platonic forms fetishists

 

[ironyuri]

But is it art?

 

[Angthoron]

Hell, the audience can declare art a non-art and a non-art an art at any moment and guess what, they would be right.

I was under the impression that the death of the author was just an emotional argument from Barthes that lit critics, sociologists and artfags latched on to so they could claim to be objectively right in overanalyzing things even when the author of a work tells them they're flat-out wrong.

That is also the case, but since that idea became dominant and rather central to current art analysis, it's something folk that use "art" as an excuse while also championing all modern trends should keep in mind as a pretty valid counterpoint.

 

[Gragt]

It's pretty, but is it art?

 

[catfood]

It's art, but is it genius?

 

[Kz3r0]

Arguing over what art "really" is, is ridiculous. It's a categorical term created by people, and as such there is no way to find "real" art, objectively; as opposed to how it is possible to find a "real" horse or a "real" carbon atom, objects we simply named.

Art is a metaphysical manifestation of the Absolute, but what degenerate Liberal faggots could know about it?

 

[Angthoron]

Fine arts can be abbreviated to F.arts. Just sayin'

 

[Radisshu]

Arguing over what art "really" is, is ridiculous. It's a categorical term created by people, and as such there is no way to find "real" art, objectively; as opposed to how it is possible to find a "real" horse or a "real" carbon atom, objects we simply named.

Art is a metaphysical manifestation of the Absolute, but what degenerate Liberal faggots could know about it?

Ok LS please provide arguments for this.

You wouldn't understand them.

 

[DraQ]

A pretty good post, even though I had to sadly skim through it, yay limited internet access.

One thing I'd like to add in regards to the "Art" defence is that we live in this period of art called post(post)modernism. Current art theory says that the Artist/author is dead - in other words, the role of filling the work of art with content falls to the audience. Audience is therefore free to call the work of art utter and complete shit, say that it's about anal sex and beastiality and otherwise completely disregard the artist. Hell, the audience can declare art a non-art and a non-art an art at any moment and guess what, they would be right. So, trying to use art as an excuse while trying to appear modern and hip is pretty retarded and only works on people that have no fucking clue what art is.

/artfag

Postmodernists, in general seem to just be morons being morons, though.

Anyway, this human (sorry, ahem, "hyooman" - there) obsession with labelling stuff with completely abstract terms (art and non-art, life and non-life, human and non-human) is plain fucking retarded.

 

[Captain Shrek]

The Pomo argument is smart, but shallow. So overall they are wrong.

The problem is not the real po-mo people (well ok, they are too). Its the mediocrity that rides their ideas and distributes them. Shallow ideas have always been easier to spread. Combine that with rebellious ideas, and you have the winning mix. The only problem is everyone involved is a loser.

 

[Oesophagus]

Postmodernists, in general seem to just be morons being morons, though.

Yup, pretty much. What they do is make up lots of long, smart-sounding words in place of having anything interesting to say (Sokal Affair)

 

[DraQ]

The Pomo argument is smart, but shallow.

Pomo argument is only as smart as person doing the interpretation. The problem is that generally people using pomo argument are total morons and douchebags who interpret stuff accordingly.

(Sokal Affair)

 

[Angthoron]

The Pomo argument is smart, but shallow. So overall they are wrong.

The problem is not the real po-mo people (well ok, they are too). Its the mediocrity that rides their ideas and distributes them. Shallow ideas have always been easier to spread. Combine that with rebellious ideas, and you have the winning mix. The only problem is everyone involved is a loser.

Pretty much this, yes. Pomo has some genuinely interesting points riding for it, and some more or less interesting authors, but I'll be damned if I can name any - as opposed to Modernism with some pretty big names going for it. From my personal perspective, it's an idea that was supposed to influence art, as opposed to most of the previous isms describing what they see at a given period of time. That's my personal view on it though, and yeah, I know that previous isms tried to proscribe an approach as well - difference being that they at least had many influential names fitting/promoting the type of writing.

Anyhoo, my initial post was more of a jab at BioWare "authorship" than anything, considering EA and Bio being the "flagship" of "postmodernism".

 

[DraQ]

DraQ,

Shut the fuck up.

You have no idea what Post-modernism is. Go read some texts. Tell me what it is. Then we can discuss. Stop getting your opinions from your own exposure to these things. Post-modernists may be idiots, the base idea is not completely ridiculous. It is WRONG, but worth checking out just to understand why so.

To compress:

Explain Po - mo IN YOUR WORDS (not wikipedophilia)
Tell me Why you think it's unworthy of your attention.

How about you shut the fuck up instead?

Whatever of value might theoretically be in pomo is irrevocably lost in practice due to pomofags using it as justification for their own intellectual vacuity.

 

[Gragt]

Wait until he goes Rothko on your ass.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Arguing over what art "really" is, is ridiculous. It's a categorical term created by people, and as such there is no way to find "real" art, objectively; as opposed to how it is possible to find a "real" horse or a "real" carbon atom, objects we simply named.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Arguing over what art "really" is, is ridiculous. It's a categorical term created by people, and as such there is no way to find "real" art, objectively; as opposed to how it is possible to find a "real" horse or a "real" carbon atom, objects we simply named.

Art is a metaphysical manifestation of the Absolute, but what degenerate Liberal faggots could know about it?

Ok LS please provide arguments for this.

You wouldn't understand them.

Pretty much. There's no point try to explain something to an idiot.