Alevice
|
 |
« Reply #100 on: December 01, 2024, 01:05:12 PM » |
|
it surely deserves more recognition than just three likes from my mom and wife
Beyond human rights and shit like food and housing, no one is deserved anything. Things are earned, through effort, luck, reexploration, whatever. But deserved? Nope. I feel that's one of the key problems. You think you deserve success, you deserve praise. No you don't. No one does.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
b∀ kkusa
|
 |
« Reply #101 on: December 01, 2024, 02:50:57 PM » |
|
My understanding, although not verified, is that Van Gogh spent most, if not all, of his life believing that Starry Night was a failure, despite it being one of the most successful paintings ever. It's unclear who would be responsible for that unpleasant twist of fate.
While it's factual that Van Gogh did believe that Starry Night was a failure (again it has a context since he "referred to it as a study and he didn't even add it to a batch of paintings he hoped his brother would sell for him"), it seems like the reason you are comparing yourself to Van gogh is because of that perpetuated myth that Van Gogh died as an unsung genius. But unfortunately it has been debunked. "The accepted assessment that he was a permanent failure during his lifetime is easily overturned. In 1889, Van Gogh was invited to show works in Brussels, at the exhibition Les XX ("The Twenties"), to a group formed in 1883 by the Belgian avant-garde, which invited the 20 most famous international artists to participate in their annual exhibition." "Everyone wants to see themselves as someone who, although unsuccessful now, will be discovered and become very successful in 10 or 20 years." https://telegrafi.com/en/subversion-of-myths-Van-Gogh-did-not-die-as-a-neglected-genius/https://vangoghletters.org/vg/context_3.html
|
|
« Last Edit: December 01, 2024, 03:18:48 PM by b∀ kkusa »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pilea
Level 0
|
 |
« Reply #102 on: December 01, 2024, 04:16:33 PM » |
|
it surely deserves more recognition than just three likes from my mom and wife
Beyond human rights and shit like food and housing, no one is deserved anything. Things are earned, through effort, luck, reexploration, whatever. But deserved? Nope. I feel that's one of the key problems. You think you deserve success, you deserve praise. No you don't. No one does. This is really the heart of it. Nobody is owed anything for their art. If someone is making art that other people do not care about, that does not speak to them or have any meaning for them, there is absolutely no injustice in that art going unrecognized or uncelebrated.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michaelplzno
|
 |
« Reply #103 on: December 01, 2024, 05:14:04 PM » |
|
I never said I was some unsung genius. Just that I deserve more than three likes for my work. And if I got them, the system would likely be better for everyone, not just me. I don't think the system should be based on luck. Earn likes on social media? I dare any of you to take some art and I will post it on my page as my own and see how many likes you get.
I do know of a study that involved a concert violinist who performed on a street corner who didn't make any more money donations than a common amateur.
If you are so sure the system isn't rigged up, try posting your stuff as if it were mine, or let me post my stuff on some superstar's feed and see what the difference is.
But again, you just want to dump on me for having the audacity of saying I deserve more. I see artists all the time who deserve bigger followings, I could name 10 artists I follow and am friends with who deserve better treatment from the algorithms off the top of my head.
If you guys think that the system is working just as good as it could, I really don't know what to say about that.
And I'm proud of my work... that's a problem?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michaelplzno
|
 |
« Reply #104 on: December 01, 2024, 05:21:15 PM » |
|
No one deserves anything, we should all just mope and be depressed and believe in nothing  Or on social media you have to *earn* likes, how does that work? By paying for them? If the algorithm shows my work to no one, how can I *earn* a like? If my lines were straighter and I had the "intelectual dominance" you think makes art worthy, would I deserve likes then? No, "no one deserves anything," because there are human rights issues, and starving kids in far away places and war in palistine, we cannot have any art that is deserving? I like my nihilism in Rick and Morty, but its not my personal belief structure.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Foxwarrior
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: December 01, 2024, 05:53:26 PM » |
|
I'm sure there are more than 3 people on the entirety of earth who'd think your art was worth at least a thumbs up if they saw it. But... matching people to niche art is hard work, how do you find them? All your suggestions iirc have been around making the matching of art to audience members even more scattershot, indies reposting other indies that don't overlap in interests at all just in order to confuse the algorithm, borrowing someone famous's account in order to post art the audiences didn't ask to see instead of the stuff they followed for?
Actually seems to me like taking out paid ads for your art would be more meritocratic than doing stuff like that, at least then you have a strong incentive to figure out exactly who you want to show the art to, instead of just vaguely hoping that more people will see it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pilea
Level 0
|
 |
« Reply #106 on: December 01, 2024, 07:48:10 PM » |
|
No one deserves anything, we should all just mope and be depressed and believe in nothing  There is no relationship between these two statements at all. Why on earth would "no one deserves anything" lead to "we should mope and be depressed"? Is deserving things the basis of happiness? If anything, there seems to be a lot of wisdom in the world to the opposite effect. Or on social media you have to *earn* likes, how does that work? By paying for them? If the algorithm shows my work to no one, how can I *earn* a like?
No, by making things that other people like.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michaelplzno
|
 |
« Reply #107 on: December 01, 2024, 10:55:29 PM » |
|
Why on earth would "no one deserves anything" lead to "we should mope and be depressed"? If no one deserves anything, then no one deserves air, or to avoid death camps, or free speech or anything... that is, in a world where we deserve nothing, we have no rights at all, or if we do have rights we don't deserve them. This would be depressing imo but you may like it. No, by making things that other people like. As I have said many times, if the algorithm doesn't show my work to anyone then it doesn't matter how "good" my work is. @Foxwarrior Yes, most of the solutions would have to let me have influence over the algorithms. I won't back down from my stance that all artists (myself included) *DESERVE* the right to get some meaningful stats about their art from algorithms. I'm not saying that my art should be shown to every human and that I'm above all other artists. But rather, if the algorithms we use are so obfuscated and opaque, then all artists (myself included) suffer from not being able to know, for example, which ones of their pieces are better than others. And, to cite Van Gough as an example, we have a lot of artists (not who are poor victems... oh boo hoo...) who simply do not know what audiences think of their work, and thus ALL ART suffers from not knowing what is and is not meaningful and "good" work. For example, my artwork may be childish, but as we have seen in this thread, we can debate endlessly if that makes my art "good" or not. One of my inner circle members (which there are more than just my mom and wife) just called my artwork "cool" of all things, lol. But even then, I would like to get a better sampling rather than the scattershot approach you are mentioning that I use. A solution, that is pretty reasonable, is to give everyone a free stipend of say $100 a month on social networks of free advertising to spend as they wish. This would mean that if you compete for the most popular slots, you are probably wasting your money unless your stuff is truly outstanding, but also, if you compete in a slot that your art stinks in you also waste your money. Over time, artists could get a better understanding of which niches they fit into and learn about their audiences and how much it costs to get attention. I happen to have enough funding to try this on my own, and may do so... however I think that ALL ARTISTS deserve that kind of information. (Also if social media sites actually wanted to sell their advertisement slots giving people a taste for free would show users what paying is worth in terms of views, as in, they could always upsell people for more ad buys later.) Steam does not let the users target any audience members, or, for example, they mention that the algorithm needs to know your userbase to know who to recommend the game to. They could let devs pick a seeding of the network and see the results in sales. If the algorithm isn't some abstract gatekeeper, it should be able to be customized to serve artists, rather than simply killing off some projects like that giant hulking robocop monstrosty that shoots the board member randomly. I'm sure some will counter with "but bad actors will..." to which I reply, the cost of having a platform is that you have to police it properly. If you aren't looking for manipulative bad actors with a team of professional or community moderators, your platform is trash. And if your platform is killing legitimate work all in the name of stopping bad actors, your platform is worse than trash.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Foxwarrior
|
 |
« Reply #108 on: December 02, 2024, 01:10:21 AM » |
|
If you aren't looking for manipulative bad actors with a team of professional or community moderators, your platform is trash.
Funny story, when I read someone saying that of course the rules should be incomplete and you just use enforcers with feelings to make judgement calls instead, I get this twinge in the back of my head that makes me mad about how much the person saying it must hate game design. Yeah it'd be neat for artists to be able to get more information about how their works are perceived, it is indeed quite a struggle always to figure out what anyone actually thinks of a work, and I'm pretty sure like 30% of people will cheerfully compliment a piece while thinking "this piece has an obvious glaring flaw but it'd be rude to mention it or give any hint of its existence whatsoever because of course the artist already sees it too and I don't want to be a downer." Steam does have a system for targeting your game actually, it's the tag system, fitting your game into randomly defined genres like "action" or "female protagonist" or "real time with pause", what could be more consistent and sensible? Aside from that I think it might be trying to match games with related games based on correlations of playtime or something. I think they're making a good-faith effort to show people games they might like, but it's actually a very thorny problem, the things that actually make a game please a particular person can be rather... personal, I think Steam might simply not collect enough data on users for a sufficiently precise targeting system to be possible, even if they wanted to make and expose such a thing to developers.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Schoq
|
 |
« Reply #109 on: December 02, 2024, 02:39:47 AM » |
|
Can we stop invoking the universal declaration of human rights in a discussion about a piece of art getting an unsatisfactory number of thumbs up on social media please?
|
|
|
Logged
|
♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
|
|
|
Mark Mayers
|
 |
« Reply #110 on: December 02, 2024, 03:04:50 AM » |
|
A solution, that is pretty reasonable, is to give everyone a free stipend of say $100 a month on social networks of free advertising to spend as they wish. This would mean that if you compete for the most popular slots, you are probably wasting your money unless your stuff is truly outstanding, but also, if you compete in a slot that your art stinks in you also waste your money. Over time, artists could get a better understanding of which niches they fit into and learn about their audiences and how much it costs to get attention.
I mean you're exactly describing how the majority of algorithmic social media works- except the $100 of paid advertising is an irrelevant factor.  If your posts aren't gaining traction on a platform your audience on that platform is likely non-existent or you haven't put in the work to build your audience. If you have trouble building an audience in general (which it seems like you do) improve your work and educate yourself on how to build communities. I remember Facebook was like 'pay $57 to make this show this to 500 more people' - absolute nonsense. My same post got 100k+ impressions and thousands of likes on Twitter. I paid nothing for either post. Instead with $100: - Buy better art supplies.
- Take classes to improve your artistic technique.
- Take classes in marketing and business to better learn how to manage a social network and build a following.
- Find a therapist? Why do these likes even matter to you?
--- No one deserves anything, we should all just mope and be depressed and believe in nothing  Or on social media you have to *earn* likes, how does that work? By paying for them? If the algorithm shows my work to no one, how can I *earn* a like? If my lines were straighter and I had the "intelectual dominance" you think makes art worthy, would I deserve likes then? I won't back down from my stance that all artists (myself included) *DESERVE* the right to get some meaningful stats about their art from algorithms. I'm not saying that my art should be shown to every human and that I'm above all other artists.
Again, my primary criticism with your thought process is you believe things are happening to you, you are not in control of them, you refuse to improve because 'you shouldn't have to', and you deserve success and acknowledgement. Art is a skill, marketing is a skill, managing a business is a skill. Your skills, talents, and holistic experience as a person will drive the outcomes in your life. You 'earn' likes and acknowledgement from the respect and admiration of other people. Who would admire someone who expects everything to be handed to them, and refuses to improve otherwise?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michaelplzno
|
 |
« Reply #111 on: December 02, 2024, 08:31:12 AM » |
|
I don't know how many times I've said I'm trying to improve and have improved vastly in the last 6 years of practicing every day. I think it's 3 now? I disagree on what a "good" piece of art is. That is, what is good by my metric isn't good by yours. And I tend to think that what gets selected by social media is not very much my definition of good art. As in, I don't want to make art that imitates you, I have my own style. I'm glad you got a viral post on twitter. I've had posts on twitter that get millions of "impressions." They were mostly Simpsons memes and other crap. I don't think the system is correct just because sometimes a post slips through. In fact, as a game designer, we all know that random periodic rewards are designed to get people engaged with a system that just wants the most time it can suck away from the user. I don't think this is happening to me, I think this is happening to a lot of artists who deserve better. And I don't think you have as much control over the algorithms as you believe you do. I'm not too excited to buy into the idea that Elon Musk, or Mark Zuckerberg's measuring stick is truly the pinnacle of fair measures of what art is and is not worthy. For all I know, you go get lunch with those two every day. Funny story, when I read someone saying that of course the rules should be incomplete and you just use enforcers with feelings to make judgement calls instead, I get this twinge in the back of my head that makes me mad about how much the person saying it must hate game design. I'm not interested in everything being a game, nor are games capable of solving all systemic problems. What game design could stop people from speeding without cops to pull people over? Only some people can vote ... if they win a game? I love games but not that much. I would love the rules to be complete. And having human moderators who follow rules would be a good idea. Police don't enforce the law based on feelings IRL, they follow a ton of procedural codes that are very complete and cover pretty much any situation. So I was never advocating for "incomplete rules" just that to make the rules stick you need people to enforce them.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alevice
|
 |
« Reply #112 on: December 02, 2024, 09:01:31 AM » |
|
Why on earth would "no one deserves anything" lead to "we should mope and be depressed"? If no one deserves anything, then no one deserves air, or to avoid death camps, or free speech or anything... that is, in a world where we deserve nothing, we have no rights at all, or if we do have rights we don't deserve them. This would be depressing imo but you may like it. If we are going to engage in a conversation, I expect the bare minimum for you is to develop reading comprehension: it surely deserves more recognition than just three likes from my mom and wife
Beyond human rights and shit like food and housing, no one is deserved anything. Things are earned, through effort, luck, reexploration, whatever. But deserved? Nope. I feel that's one of the key problems. You think you deserve success, you deserve praise. No you don't. No one does. If you are not going to bother doing the bare minimum, then all this is a waste of time for everyone else.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michaelplzno
|
 |
« Reply #113 on: December 02, 2024, 10:11:41 AM » |
|
We earn things through being lucky? My reading comprehension is a little slow about that concept.
Also, I would say that we deserve more than simply basic survival stuff, we deserve fun and beauty and art. Again, you may disagree there, but if we don't have art we aren't really living.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michaelplzno
|
 |
« Reply #114 on: December 02, 2024, 10:19:36 AM » |
|
At the risk of getting crucified, man was not meant to live on bread and water alone.
We deserve art that isn't political, that is fun and wacky and sometimes a little outside the box. If we say that only what twitter picks is deserving we might as well throw the bulk of art in the trash and accept that trump (or whatever politician) with a swastika on his forehead is the best art known to man.
But yes, I don't think I'm owed anything, I just want to get lucky like you all say is how the system is supposed to work, and that's how I'll "earn" it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
b∀ kkusa
|
 |
« Reply #115 on: December 02, 2024, 10:28:32 AM » |
|
I don't want to make art that imitates you, I have my own style.
I'm glad you got a viral post on twitter. I've had posts on twitter that get millions of "impressions." They were mostly Simpsons memes and other crap. I don't think the system is correct just because sometimes a post slips through. In fact, as a game designer, we all know that random periodic rewards are designed to get people engaged with a system that just wants the most time it can suck away from the user.
I don't think this is happening to me, I think this is happening to a lot of artists who deserve better. And I don't think you have as much control over the algorithms as you believe you do. I'm not too excited to buy into the idea that Elon Musk, or Mark Zuckerberg's measuring stick is truly the pinnacle of fair measures of what art is and is not worthy. For all I know, you go get lunch with those two every day.
Michael Mayers was a perfect example of art/game that goes against the norm and still managing to beat the algorithm. he has a pretty constant engagement in his social medias and you just dismiss it as a viral tweet. Comparing it to a viral meme tweet doesn't stand on the same grounds as you don't account the fact that it's a complete different audience. Anyone can make viral tweets with memes. It's less likely for artists/game devs but i still see a lot of them on my twitter follow list getting regular high engagement tweets because they have interesting artworks in their OWN STYLE. I tend to think that what gets selected by social media is not very much my definition of good art However, my motivation wanes because my projects rarely receive significant attention Do you even know how social media works? It human beings who are selecting what they like. It's people who follows you that will need to engage with your project. If your project doesn't get significant attention, it usually just means one thing: It's Shite. what is good by my metric isn't good by yours by definition a metric requires to be " internationally adopted". as an artist your metric is the amount of people interested by your projects. your metric is meaningless.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
b∀ kkusa
|
 |
« Reply #116 on: December 02, 2024, 10:35:37 AM » |
|
But yes, I don't think I'm owed anything, I just want to get lucky like you all say is how the system is supposed to work, and that's how I'll "earn" it.
you really need to learn to develop reading comprehension. People only mentioned luck as one existing factor. Luck is only going to help you if you have compelling content. People who get lucky by the Youtube algorithm are people who are already having a steady following and quality content, not youtubers who post mediocre content.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pilea
Level 0
|
 |
« Reply #117 on: December 02, 2024, 01:31:30 PM » |
|
We earn things through being lucky? My reading comprehension is a little slow about that concept.
Also, I would say that we deserve more than simply basic survival stuff, we deserve fun and beauty and art. Again, you may disagree there, but if we don't have art we aren't really living.
At the risk of getting crucified, man was not meant to live on bread and water alone. This conversation has not at all been about whether we deserve art or not. It is about art deserving recognition, which is not whatsoever equivalent to whether society deserves "fun and beauty and art". This misunderstanding is very odd to me because we are responding a claim that you initially made about what your work "deserves"—this doesn't seem to just be a lack of reading comprehension, you seem to actually not remember a claim that you made in this thread in the past day. We deserve art that isn't political, that is fun and wacky and sometimes a little outside the box. If we say that only what twitter picks is deserving we might as well throw the bulk of art in the trash and accept that trump (or whatever politician) with a swastika on his forehead is the best art known to man. Your claim was that your work: surely deserves more recognition than just three likes from my mom and wife. Again, this is a conversation that you framed in the context of getting "likes" on social media. That's what people are responding to. But yes, I don't think I'm owed anything, I just want to get lucky like you all say is how the system is supposed to work, and that's how I'll "earn" it. No one is saying the system is supposed to work by getting lucky. The way the system is supposed to work is that you put your work out there and people respond to it if it speaks to them. If they like your work, they will advocate for you and show your work to others, who hopefully also find merit in it and also go on to advocate for it. It is certainly not a flawless system, but the system is not the problem here. You are successfully putting your work in front of others—here and elsewhere on the internet—and they do not seem to particularly care about it. I understand how that can be frustrating, but how is it unjust? The challenge of art is to make something that other people find interesting or compelling. Are people supposed to be obligated to champion art that they don't find interesting or compelling? Why should anyone owe a stranger's bad art anything?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Mayers
|
 |
« Reply #118 on: December 02, 2024, 03:35:22 PM » |
|
I'm glad you got a viral post on twitter. I've had posts on twitter that get millions of "impressions." They were mostly Simpsons memes and other crap. I don't think the system is correct just because sometimes a post slips through.
Mayers was a perfect example of art/game that goes against the norm and still managing to beat the algorithm. he has a pretty constant engagement in his social medias and you just dismiss it as a viral tweet.
Comparing it to a viral meme tweet doesn't stand on the same grounds as you don't account the fact that it's a complete different audience. Anyone can make viral tweets with memes. It's less likely for artists/game devs but i still see a lot of them on my twitter follow list getting regular high engagement tweets because they have interesting artworks in their OWN STYLE.
 It's not chance or a post 'slipping through.' The posts consistently perform well because I spent the time and effort into honing my craft as an artist, building relations with other game developers, and building a community of fans. These are all skills and building blocks *you* have to put effort into. This is all art which I made in my own style which I put work into. Anyone can make "mostly Simpsons memes and other crap." The good news is, regardless of how ostensibly opaque these algorithms are, if *you* put in *work* to build your craft and community, you'll gain a following. I don't understand why you keep rejecting this concept. It strikes me as if you're in denial about improving your art, or are in denial there's a fairly deterministic and meritocratic system behind all of this. If you make something good, people will like it, and it will get promoted and shared by other people. If you're not getting the results you want, improve your skills and build a stronger community. Again I'll repeat myself, the only one preventing you from your goals is yourself, however you define those goals. ---
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michaelplzno
|
 |
« Reply #119 on: December 02, 2024, 04:12:46 PM » |
|
I don't work hard, the system is great, and I can't read. Are we done yet?
Edit: why does it bother you so much that I don't think the system is fair, why are you so staunchly in favor of twitter and the algorithms that you think I don't work on my art or to build a community? You can't even imagine that someone is working as hard as you, or maybe even harder, who doesn't get the payday.
I've even started my own social network, you guys just want to beat up on anyone who says the system isn't perfect? Jesus, this is supposed to be some kind of indie game forum, not the "you don't make it because you don't work hard and wear a suit and tie."
|
|
« Last Edit: December 02, 2024, 04:24:04 PM by michaelplzno »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|