Artists aren't exempt from criticism. Especially when their art is offered up for public consumption. Such art is actually designed to engage a audience. If the goal of a artist is to elicit a reaction from the audience. Then it goes without any question that some of those reactions will be negative. Any creative act is a form of art. My writing this post is in fact a creative act on my part. Thus it is a work of art. Even if I am not so self aggrandizing as to call myself a Artist. Am I not subject to peer review. For the content of what I post, or the underlying message I am putting forth. That should be the case, because I am obviously engaging in a relationship with other posters.
Just as the studio in question is seeking to engage with potential customers for their products. If they don't want to deal with criticism. The obvious choice to avoid that was to not provide their game for public consumption, but that is what they did, because they want to be paid for their art. They want patrons to support their art. Artists have rights, but the patron has rights too. The right to not pay for art they find obscene is one of them. Further more as any big Artists from the Renaissance will tell you.
What the customer wants comes first. A Artist is free to pursue any art they want on their own time, and obviously at their own expense, but if they are filling a order. They need to bend their creativity to the desires of another. They don't have to make art for a Patron, but if they need or want money. Then they need to fulfill the needs of their client foremost. Art isn't a excuse for a service provider to not provide the service expected. A waiter cannot just choose what they are going to serve you. A mechanic cannot decide to repaint your car, because they didn't like the color. A Barber cannot decide to give you a Mohawk when the customer asked for a trim.
That isn't the way the world works. Your artistic license isn't a license to do whatever you feel like. If you want to make money from your artistic skill. In this case Electronic Arts is offering up just plain bad art, and at the core of that art is a pretty unethical view. That the consumer needs to be treated as if they were a thief. That the consumer exists solely to service them, and that means they should gear themselves towards the most vulgar exploitation they think that they can get away with.
Well as far as art goes. I wouldn't buy a picture of a brute of a man skull fucking a infant to death, and I don't intend to buy another game from Electronic Arts. After all they are basically the same thing after all. This is the same tired just plain nauseating excuse that is offered up for every misdeed that Electronic Arts perpetrates. As if claiming Artistic intent elevates them beyond the reach of the rabble. It speaks to a sense of them feeling that they are superior, and that we are nothing compared to them. Well they are just fucking wrong on that account.
It doesn't make them look more sympathetic. It only makes them look sardonic. We should feel more outraged by such a slimy excuse for why they shouldn't be judged. Art is never a acceptable excuse to behave unethically towards others.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
