Uh, what? Are you insane? I assure you, Danielle Steele, Piers Anthony, and Martha Grimes do not write novels because they make no money at this.
That doesn't even make sense. I didn't claim that writers choose to be writers
because they don't make money. That's bizarre.
I am saying that making money isn't their motivation for being writers. And having just flicked through a few interviews with Danielle Steele, Piers Anthony, and Martha Grimes, I can assure you that none of these writers are writers because of the money. They write because they need to write, because they have ideas and stories they need to share. The fact that they make money from it simply enables them to focus on doing that, and not have to earn a living elsewhere.
And people absolutely write books for money. Read old science fiction anthologies - see how often authors discuss turning out a particular short story for rent money, or something similar.
Yes, writers produce work for money alone - if that's your sole source of income you have no choice. But to what end? Well here's Piers Anthony's take:
"let me say that I don't consider Xanth the pinnacle of my career. Xanth is what pays my way so I can afford to do serious writing"
Serious writing. He sometimes has to put out money-makers, but only to give him an income so he's free to do his
real writing, the stuff that matters, his art.
Video games are absolutely as much of an art form as film, books, or music.
They're not though. Video games aren't about artistry. They don't attempt to make compelling statements about the world around us. They don't offer insight into the human condition. They're entertainment. Facets of video game design involve artistry, sure, but the overall work is not a piece of art. It's a technical product, designed for entertainment, and the people at the heart of creating these games are technicians and businessmen, not artists.
I doubt any film director really thinks that he's contributing something deep to the art world when he makes a film about cars that turn into robots
Really? Michael Bay on
Transformers:
"Well, the underlying theme to me is really no sacrifice, no victory. That was something I wanted to nail. My movies often deal with the hero arch-type and the boy becoming a man, kind of like Nic Cage becoming a hero in
The Rock."
You'd be surprised how important filmmakers
think their film is.
Similarly, companies don't turn out games like Modern Warfare or God of War III because they think they'll tell a deep story.
The difference is the primary personality behind these games doesn't think they're making some profound work. In almost all film cases the primary personality really does think this.
I don't think any of the things you've mentioned "define" art. A punch in the face can inspire emotion, a traffic light forces you to make a decision and witness the consequences of that decision, and a coffee machine is interactive. None of that is art.
Art often does all of these things. But fundamentally, for me, the defining characteristic of art, and particularly what separates it from design, is that art is conveying a message intended to influence the audience's values and view of the world.
