Accepting role as an artist?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

Thread Tools Display Modes
  12 December 2005
Good points there. I have to agree.

Part of being an artist, and making a living at it makes it a job. You do it to pay the bills as a commercial artist and just like any job at times you may have to do things you donít like to much. If you donít like a design or idea you can critique it if you are with a good company and may get things changed, or you may change you point of view.

If you have to keep doing things you donít agree with and aren't happy then itís time to start looking for another job. It can take time, but itís better then being stuck in a bad position.

Commercial art is different then fine art, and that is a whole different approach if you are doing fine art for personal work.

While art can help shape things you also have to consider the viewing public, and allow them to make some choices. A half way intelligent person can look at thing, art, etc. and make their own decisions on things. In some places people donít want to think and then cry victim when something goes a way they donít like. Then do they blame the art, did the art force them to do something? Most times it was the person refusing to take responsibility to begin with, but that is a whole different problem facing society.
  12 December 2005
Shared Responsiblity

I think Ernest Hemmingway said that he never used symbolism a day in his life. People brought their own experiences and thoughts and projected it into his work. The same goes for art as well. Viewers participate in the art that they view. A game is not complete without a player, and an art piece is not complete without a viewer. That goes for commercial art as well as fine and personal art. So if artist has any responsibility the same amount of responsibility, if not more lays with viewer. Like Mojo said above weather the view will or not is another question.
  12 December 2005
I think no matter who you are, you must have social responsibility. Its like saying well, I don't give a damn about how much harm I'm causing the earth, I just want to do whatever I want. Irresponsible is the reason why today we are faced with so many problems.

Artists (including TV, movies, games, etc) should have social responsibility. You must know just how much these can influences people today. Just how many times you look at the newspaper articles and believe what they said? Its the same logic as to arts if someone understand what you drawing. Today you not only see art on newspapers, mags and books like in the past. You also see art in TV, movies, Internet, etc. People are more expose to art than in the past. And every piece of art work can influences.

Why people today worry about game contents? Look at grand theft auto, you become a bad guy and go around messing the virtual world. If someone is not clear of his mind, he might just do it in the real world. Even if I am clear of my mind, I may have been influenced by the game. I don't think you want everyone in this world to be like grand theft auto.

But you don't need to use negative value to win people hearts. Final Fantasy series, Naruto anime, etc. They all bring good value to people and its winning people hearts.

What I am saying is, yes, having social responsibility does restrict you ideas and creativity, but that doesn't mean you can't excel with social responsibility in your work. And you can always protrait negative value yet insert social reponsibility through some thinking. I think a words of warning that comes with your art can greatly reduce the among of negative value.

I'm out of idea of what I want to say, but anyway, that should be most of it.

Last edited by lxcid : 12 December 2005 at 08:45 AM.
  12 December 2005
To bring up a point on Lunatique's point if an artist depicts a muderer or rapist not getting what he deserves in the end that could be his expression on his opinion on the justice system and how people get away with such vile acts.

I think of art as feelings that the artists have and an artist shouldnt have to censor himself because society feels he has a responsibilty. I guess this closley resembles the argument of should atheletes try to be good role models. It can go both ways but I say art should be honest.
God modelled man in his own reference image.
Dreams of art mastery brought me here.

  12 December 2005
Originally Posted by BenDstraw: To bring up a point on Lunatique's point if an artist depicts a muderer or rapist not getting what he deserves in the end that could be his expression on his opinion on the justice system and how people get away with such vile acts.

This is assuming the artist depicts the violent acts as heinous and despicable crimes, and convey the message that the criminal getting away with them is a BAD thing. However, I've seen plenty of comic books from Europe or Japan that depicted gratuitous sex and violence, with zero responsibility whatsoever--all exploitive of the animalistic pleasure the criminal gets out of the violent acts, yet I don't see Europe or Japan with higher crime rates.
  12 December 2005
Originally Posted by Lunatique: Yes, it also shapes it, not only reflect it, just like you said. So that means it does play a role in shaping society.

Of course creative people shouldn't focus only on social messages--that would get pretty boring, but it's kinda of natural for us to depict our own moral standards and social values. For example, a mentally normal, healthy artist is not going to all of a sudden depict a series of brutal rape images for no reason--because that type of behavior is so far removed from his own values and morals. He might do a comic book about a psycho serial rapist--but if he's even slightly concerned about social responsibility, he'll make sure that the serial rapist gets what he deserves in the story's conclusion. If the artist isn't responsible and only depicts the serial rapist having one success after another while exploiting the animalistic and violent rape scenes, then you have to wonder if that's really acceptable.

Yeah, that is done a lot in crime shows and CSI and what not. It gets to the point where they almost can't lose. I agree with you that this is probally the best thing for kids and weak minded adults to see so they don't get the idea that they can do these things without consiquences. It does get rather boring to me though if it is done all the time. I dunno how to really put it, on one had it isn't good for some people, but on the other hand there are some people that could handel it. I guess the only real solution is to be carful of who your audience is, but you can't do that 100%.
"If you would stop twitching so much and shut up maybe you would learn something" -- My third grade teacher
  12 December 2005
IMHO it is not a matter of a "responsability towards society" but simply a matter of artist's internal urge to comment social phenomena in the culture he/she lives and participates in. In other (simpler) words: if an artist gets pissed off enough by high taxes, oil prices or religious fanatics killing innocent people - he would probably open his psychological valve in the best way he can: by expressing the anger in form of an artistic expression. That's called Art.

If he/or she does it not because of his/her irrational internal urge but as a result of a rational decision that "the society expect him or her to do that" - it is not art anymore but a cheap political (/religous/commercial...) propaganda and I bet the artist will not find any creative enjoyment or pride in such a work.

Just my humble opinion - and no, I don't consider myself an artist, I just like to transfer images of non-existent worlds or situations from my mind to other people that might enjoy it. I don't care about conveying a message or saving the world. If I had to depict a murder scene (pictures like that are something common today even though I think murder is far, far worse than rape, porn etc.) I'd do it with no bad conscience or guilt. If someone sees me as a potential murderer because of that, it is probably his turn to see a psychoanalyst. Creating or consuming art products that show murder scenes would make a murderer out of someone as much as filming or watching "westerns" would make him become a cowboy.

It really makes no difference. Whatever art we create, socially engaged or not - the murderers, rapists, religious fanatics and worse of all, politicians out there don't care at all and will happily keep on doing what they do.
  12 December 2005
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
Thread Closed share thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Society of Digital Artists

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.