Making art does mean making whatever the hell you want.
No it doesn't. Art is communication - if you fail to communicate what you want to the audience you are aiming for then you have failed as an artist. If art wasn't taught we would still be at the stage when people would draw crude drawings on cave walls, and bang rocks together. Whatever art one enjoyed, it is build of hindered of years of progress and learning. You can set any objective you want, but we live in pre-made world, and make art to communicate with pre-defined people. You always work within confines of physics, and psychology of people you will communicate with. There isn't really such thing as making art for yourself - a piece of music is to be listened, poem or book is to be read, movie is to be watched etc. If one makes art just for his or her own entertainment for making it they are not artists. Just as a cook is not really a cook if someone fries meat because they enjoy the activity, and not to craft a meal for someone.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by neprostoman
Edit: the way I see it, games are art. They are born from an idea and are shapen by people who invested in that idea. You don't teach other people how to and how not to do art.
You do teach other people how to art. People pay hundred of thousands of dollars to be tough how to do art. Doing art doesn't shield you from criticism. Making art doesn't mean making whatever hell you want.
Artist is someone who develop his craft to the point of being one of a kind. It's a mastery of a highest level.
An artist can have ideas that people don't comprehend but putting poorly put together cutscenes of digital puppets rubbing against each other is not that.
Art comes first, a product comes second. Unless you are trying to create a product in the first place. CRPGs were not in a high demand until DOS2 popped and for me it is an indicator that Larian make games firstly out of passion. But even if we put this distinction between fine art and commercial art aside, an artist doesn't have to pay any toll to anyone. I didn't say anything about them being shielded from criticism. What I said and meant is that criticism does not obligate an artist to change technique for the sake of either "humanity" or "fashion" or "all that is holy". If its commercial art the product won't sell, but here the numbers say otherwise. If its fine art it is even more so independent from outsider's opinion. There were a lot of artists who got recognition only after their death, take Van Gogh for example.
Failing as an artist doesn't mean you are not an artist and your piece is not an art. You are twisting concepts here or there is clearly a communication barrier. Should we now say that you are not a forum member because you failed at communication for a mere moment? Or is it applicable to any of us? Of course no.
Or is it applicable to any of us? Of course no.