@MiniPato said:
Oh great, personal attacks now? The reason I'm making it a big deal is not because of the issue itself, but more the reaction to the issue. It's great that Moss and Gearbox isn't making a big deal about it. But what isn't great is people takes this as free reign to discredit him as an artist and creative individual because he reacted the way he did. It's not great that people call him an asshole for reacting the way that he initially did when he has a right to. Yes, nothing is new under the sun and yet people still come up with fresh and original art by taking inspiration from other artists and doing their own thing with it.
What difference does it make if he made posters about Star Wars or some nobody that no one knows about? The quality of art work does not always directly relate to the popularity of the subject matter. The reason he is popular is BECAUSE he puts his own style on top of it. The exact opposite of what you said. Is Andy Warhol less of an artist because he relies on pop culture icons to make his art?
I'm not taking issue with the Borderlands thing. I'm taking issue with your ad hominem approach to debate, your shallow and shortsighted understanding of art and the difference between inspiration and imitation . Our argument has far surpassed the subject of this thread. If you want to keep debating with me, I'll be happy to through PM.
See, this is where you're wrong. He had no right to be mad at all, and he is an asshole (at least in that specific case) for being so. You are still trying to claim he has some kind of right to his style of art, and because of this you aren't understanding the comparison to his use of things other people created. I will try to spell it out one more time, and if you don't understand, I can't help you and will be done with the conversation. So, let's break it down.
1. To understand this, let's break down the art into two parts. First, the use of something someone else created that is protected by copyright law. Whether he had permission to us it or not is irrelevant to this part. The part that matters is that it is something another person created, and it is protected. Second, the style he chooses to bring to it, which is neither protected by any law, nor uniquely his own. Therefore, it is deemed usable by anyone for the good of artistic community.
2. We can then divide the Borderlands image into two parts as well. First, the use of something that was created by the people working within Gearbox. The actually people that created the protected work in question. Second, the use of an artistic style that was chosen, which is neither protected by any law, nor uniquely the companies own.
This is the inherent difference, and why I make the comparison. He complained about someone using something that is not his, and also not protected, while a good portion of his work's success is due to the use of protected material which he had no part in creating. This is, of course, not to say he isn't talented. but like I said before, he should be ecstatic that someone is doing things simliar to himself, not because he is some god of art that created this wonderful style, but because he knows he is the inspiration and the reason this style is popular due to his skill at creation
This is the essence of the backlash. He has no problem using someone else's protected creation to help his work, and yet he gets mad when someone uses something that is in no way his, but rather, something he helped make popular. Therein lies the contradiction, and the reason for the reaction.
Log in to comment