> No, art is whatever the artist wants to call art, and it's whatever people want to find meaning in.
Your non-definition of art has no relevance to this discussion. You assume this is all very simple because you have no idea what you're talking about. You're engaged in the sort of discussion that inspired the dunning kruger research.
> the vast majority of people won't really care
If the vast majority of people won't care, why do all major movies and games spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on VFX when they could get lower quality versions of the same exact imagery for 1/20th the budget like SyFy productions do? It provides a huge ROI because people care. If your taste and/or perception isn't sophisticated enough for it to matter, you can't just assume that's the case for everybody else. Truthfully, you almost certainly do have the perceptual sophistication to care-- you just haven't spent much time breaking down all of the incredibly important details that escape your notice that heavily influence your impression of the end product.
There's no shame in not knowing something, but there is shame in the hubris of trying to explain that thing to subject matter experts.
----
EDIT: I can't reply to your comment but it doesn't matter. You're clearly way outside of your depth and I have no interest in playing along to help you avoid having to confront that. Bye.
Also, not sure why you can't reply to me, I see my comment and your comment just fine. Are you being rate limited by HN?
Either way, saying someone is "way out of their depth" simply because they disagree with your preconceived notions really isn't a way to communicate, if so, just shut yourself off to any opinions at all. To onlookers, it just seems like an excuse to not engage in meaningful discourse.
I'm saying you're way out of your depth because you're treading the philosophical ground most committed artists are sick of within a few years of adolescence, and your assertions about the effect and creation of visuals in entertainment show even less understanding than that. I've had a billion conversations like this with developers, engineers, etc. so enamored with their own ability to reason that they incorrectly assume it gives them universal expertise.
I'm well beyond the age where I feel the need to explain basic aspects of something I have professional expertise in because someone insists their lack of knowledge is just as valid as my hard-won education and experience. So if you want to keep arguing about it, go ahead. You're just going to do it by yourself.
Good for you, perhaps you do have more knowledge than me. But as I mentioned, there are not just developers on this site, I've been doing art for far longer than I've been a developer, for example.
> You assume this is all very simple because you have no idea what you're talking about. You're engaged in the sort of discussion that inspired the dunning kruger research.
Not really. Don't assume you're the only artist on this site, there are others too. Why don't you provide a valid definition of art then? Then we'll use that one for this discussion.
> If the vast majority of people won't care, why do all major movies and games spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on VFX when they could get lower quality versions of the same exact imagery for 1/20th the budget like SyFy productions do?
That's...my point. This is basically what I said (or perhaps what I meant to say, if that didn't come across clearly). Then you said,
> Creating images is a vastly different process than creating art though creating art might involve it. If you think art is merely customizing imagery things to suit people's preferences, you don't understand art.
I understood this to mean that you see something beyond creating images (ie, fancy VFX) and that there is some deeper meaning of "art." My point is that as long as people see pretty, expensive pictures on the screen, many of them won't care about some ideal artistic merit. See how much money Avatar or Transformers make over generally more highly-regarded artistic films like Everything Everywhere All At Once which didn't make nearly as much.
Your non-definition of art has no relevance to this discussion. You assume this is all very simple because you have no idea what you're talking about. You're engaged in the sort of discussion that inspired the dunning kruger research.
> the vast majority of people won't really care
If the vast majority of people won't care, why do all major movies and games spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on VFX when they could get lower quality versions of the same exact imagery for 1/20th the budget like SyFy productions do? It provides a huge ROI because people care. If your taste and/or perception isn't sophisticated enough for it to matter, you can't just assume that's the case for everybody else. Truthfully, you almost certainly do have the perceptual sophistication to care-- you just haven't spent much time breaking down all of the incredibly important details that escape your notice that heavily influence your impression of the end product.
There's no shame in not knowing something, but there is shame in the hubris of trying to explain that thing to subject matter experts.
----
EDIT: I can't reply to your comment but it doesn't matter. You're clearly way outside of your depth and I have no interest in playing along to help you avoid having to confront that. Bye.