Why does modern media seem to favor anonymizing content?

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11 November 2012   #16
The model is not the same on the web, you can not maintain and enforce the same copy rights that with work done on analogic support. It is imposible because first the proliferation of works makes everything you produce less and less relevant. When printing press was invented 600 years ago, I am pretty sure there was a shift in copy rights as we are seeing it today. You can only maintaing relevance by giving your work a less strict copy right, easier to be realistically enforced and on the other side, respected.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses
 
Old 11 November 2012   #17
Why does modern media seem to favor anonymizing content?

I think for the most part, because with all the competition around, and the ease of which it is to promote your art, the work itself does the talking.

Nobody cares if your a rock star or super eccentric, its all about the work. In commercial art anyway. Fine art world, well its all about controversial personalities and super egos lets not even go there >_<

Also if the work is great i do check who made it, then follow their blog, subscribe to facebook page so i can see all their updates etc. Im not really sure what your trying to say tbh

Last edited by conbom : 11 November 2012 at 10:21 PM.
 
Old 11 November 2012   #18
I'm not sure if I understand the original question, or not. My first thought was that much of what people make in the industry is treated as a product, not as art. Properties are expected to retain value for whoever holds them, and when a game is released there are so many names attached that no-one really knows who to attribute it to. I know Just Cause is developed by avalanche and published by Square Enix. I don't have a clue who designed the character, or who originally had the vision which led to the game being made. There are many legendary names in the games industry, but it takes a groundbreaking title that redefines or creates a genre or association with numerous successful titles. Every game/review tells you who the studio and publisher are, but aside from film directors, actors/voice talent and music, you don't hear much about all of the other people who make the content we consume. That's the anonymity I notice.
 
Old 11 November 2012   #19
Thanks for the great comments so far.

To clarify the point I was trying to make the problem, in my view, is twofold.

How Companies treat the content creator.

(hint: they just want it NOW and cheap)
And now How the Consumer treat the content creator.

(hint: they seem to care less and less on WHO did it.)


Here is a great comment about how this revolution affected the professional photography world:
FROM:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/ques...nal-photography

by Rick Smolan Photographer There's good and bad things about the world of photography right now. When I started taking photographs professionally in the mid-'70s, there were probably 200 or 300 men and women in the world that did the kind of photography that I wanted to be doing. It was a very small group of people. Every time there was a pope visit, or a presidential visit, or a plane crash, or a revolution, it was the same men and women that would show up.

Now, because of digital photography, because everybody carries a broadcast network in their pocket with their cell phone cameras, because of crowd sourcing and the ability of anyone to send a picture and share it instantly with anybody else, I think that there's been a really strong diminution of photography.

I think it still requires a great eye and being a great journalist. But I think a lot of the magazines don't care and that they just want a picture that's good enough. So I think that it's much harder right now for people who I consider to be photojournalists to get work and to spend months on a story -- instead of days on a story.

And now they're competing against every other person who's out there who might not have as good a picture, but it might get to the editors faster. Or, you know, it can scoop a great photographer simply because you're in the middle of the square in Egypt, and you've got a picture because you happened to be standing in the right place. So, most of my friends who are in the professional photography world are suffering badly right now.

The other thing that happens: It used to be that after you were finished shooting a story for "National Geographic" or "TIME," you could then take those same photographs and put them into what's called a stock agency so that those pictures could be sold for other purposes. And you used to be able to get a lot of money for those pictures -- for textbook publishers, for books about history. And now that whole market has also plummeted because the pervasiveness of photography.

It's sort of hard to end that sentence with good news. Because so many people are now buying DSLRs --large Nikons and Cannons and Olympus cameras -- there's a visual literacy. People appreciate photography more. They're more interested in it. Now, because of the iPad and the Internet, photography is used so much more.

I mean, kids are being taught now to use PowerPoint in school as a way of doing their homework. I'm not sure that's a good idea -- I think it's actually a terrible idea. But, nevertheless, people are now used to taking images and using them as part of the way that they communicate with each other. So I think photography's more appreciated, but there are so many more people doing it, it's not nearly as good a way to earn a living as it used to be.
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 11 November 2012   #20
Diminishing Returns

So essentially art as an industry is failing. Professional artists are being outsourced to tourists with smartphones and children with webcams.

In that case, Artists need to nut up, and start beating the unholey hell out of all those brats and nosey old bitties. Yes, the Great War of Art must ensue. All amatures and hobbyists must be vanquished!

Seriously though, the sad trend seems to be that as technology makes art easier for anyone to make, the world gets saturated with cheap, serviceable work.

Maybe a backlash is in order. Everyone go old school. Dump the techno and return to paints and emulsions. Build log cabins and sing to the birds.

As said in the other thread about ITS NOT WORTH IT, lots of people seem to have a buttload of success, lots of other people not so much. How the fudge can we make it so everyone has a buttload of success? Maybe Disney will figure it out.

Until then, if you see somebody taking a picture with a cellphone, or fingerpainting with a tablet, sneak up behind them and bust a cap in their internet connection.
 
Old 11 November 2012   #21
Originally Posted by ravioli_rancher: Seriously though, the sad trend seems to be that as technology makes art easier for anyone to make, the world gets saturated with cheap, serviceable work.

Maybe a backlash is in order. Everyone go old school. Dump the techno and return to paints and emulsions. Build log cabins and sing to the birds...


I think this may be the way some artists go, you create something physical (like a painting) take a photo of it and post it on the net so as to attract attention but it never hits the net as a high quality digital reproduction because as soon as it does it basically becomes worthless through the endless and easy copying potential digital allows.

One of a kind (or limited production) physical art seems to be the only way things seem to hold their value anymore.
__________________
TheJoshBlog - Flickr - Twitter - Tumblr
 
Old 11 November 2012   #22
It's a glass half empty scenario. If you are over the age of 40 then you learned everything you know about computer graphics through the web. So now we turn around and bite the hand that fed us,.. no way.

Check it out, Blur is using kickstarter which means we get a say in what content will be produced, in principle. You can make anything you want with free software which you can learn to use for free on the web. Once you have made your content you can distribute it in any number of ways, using the web, for free.

I strongly disagree that talented individuals get overlooked. I am sculpting rocks this morning and I have Orb open on the net as reference, my favorite rock guy. I have a favorite artist for all aspects and love the possibility to use them as reference whenever I need. Not only that but artists and artisans use the free publicity the web offers to MAKE their careers and sell their wares.

Nothing is free and there is a price to pay but in this case the misuse of whatever info we put in this medium is a nominal price to pay, if it is ever misused.

Very nice discussion, and very useful topic.
Cheerio
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys

Last edited by Kanga : 11 November 2012 at 07:55 AM.
 
Old 11 November 2012   #23
IMO it has nothing to do with elitism, but with the egalitarism the internet brings to the table. Anybody with talent can shine, which is something that was not possible before, at least with art on digital support. That is what makes the work we do less and less relevant. Any work can be transmitted in milliseconds, with a click of a mouse, to the other side of the world. I am for using licenses that don't get in the way of that simple fact.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses

Last edited by Samo : 11 November 2012 at 12:59 PM.
 
Old 11 November 2012   #24
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: If the slide is left unabated PSY can go from being the greatest thing on YouTube to becoming - Anonymous. Lynched by the very audience he pandered to.


That almost sounds like you're saying Psy orchestrated his rise to fame somehow. He didn't. It was a complete fluke. He's been at it for many years in S. Korea and not even that well-known despite a long career. He made Gangnam Style as he did his other songs, and the music video for it was just another music video to him--there was no grand plan. He never could have predicted how it caught on with the global audience--it was a complete shock to him.

So what does that say about the audience in general? They are the "taste makers" in a way because they dictate what becomes popular or not, and no amount of big marketing budget can even compete with that kind of random phenomenon. It also says a lot about the general taste of the average Youtube-browsing crowd, where a silly, over-the-top music video with mediocre musical talent displayed achieves the kind of fame and success that far better creative works by far more talented/skilled creators remain ignored and unknown.

It seems like the huge hits are almost always one of these two types:

1) Random viral video that simply entertains, regardless of how cheap or pointless it may be.

2) Big budget entertainment with big names attached.

Everything else seems to just live in their own little world with niche following, no matter what the quality of the content is.

But the question is, how big do you really want to get? Realistically, less than 1% of all creative people end up having a big budget to work with, so that's out right off the bat. And if any idiotic viral video can generate tens of millions of views, it is certainly no seal of quality to simply have a big audience. And if no-talent hacks in the entertainment industry are also generating millions of dollars in revenue, that's also not an indication of any kind of success other than being famous and making a lot of money. Truly passionate creative people seem to want more than that--they want the respect of their peers, and being known as someone who creates work of quality. If that's the case, you don't need a huge audience or 7 digit income to prove that you've made it, or to feel fulfilled.

So maybe it's fine to just have enough of a niche audience that provides enough support so you can live comfortably, and more than that is just icing on the cake. Looking at things from that perspective, all of a sudden, the world seems quite normal, doesn't it?

Last edited by Lunatique : 11 November 2012 at 11:33 AM.
 
Old 11 November 2012   #25
Karmin

Florence and the Machine

Walk off the Earth.

Perhaps better than being well known is doing what you enjoy and leaving the world a bit better place than you found it
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
Old 11 November 2012   #26
Originally Posted by RobertoOrtiz: Thanks for the great comments so far.

To clarify the point I was trying to make the problem, in my view, is twofold.

How Companies treat the content creator.

(hint: they just want it NOW and cheap)
And now How the Consumer treat the content creator.

(hint: they seem to care less and less on WHO did it.)


Robert, both of these are because Google images, for example, make it apparent there there are 10's of thousands of like images. With any 'mass produced' item the value goes down. With tools being free or pirated, anyone with a modicum of skill can create good works. So the price goes down.

And if your goal focused, who cares who did it, from Indonesia to Guam, where the artist is now makes no difference, that's what the internet has done. Leveled the field, of where, one can find the person to do the 'art' you need. Why do you need a named artist?

I'm not stating if it's right, or if its wrong, its just the way things are now, maybe thats how it's always been, and the web has just made it easier to find it.

Even if you had a 'name' doing rocks, you think people dont and cant copy that? That too is not new.

In some way's it always been like this - who do you think makes those paintings in hotel rooms, and there are a lot of hotel rooms around the world, mass produced factory art.

Think - Warhol's "the Factory", and another sculptor, who name i forget, NY based, same story as warhol. Where his "Name" is placed on art/sculpture that is not made by him, only thought up by him.

There's always room for both, but the originator now has to find more/better ways to showcase the value of his/her art.

So maybe Robert nothing has changed there too. Except the tools to do it.

The more things change, the more things stay the same?
 
Old 11 November 2012   #27
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
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.