Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Naoe]

The way I see it there are 2 forms of art:
1. Indepemdent - which is created, showed to the world and eventually  sold.
2. Art for hire - which is either ordered by customer (a) or advertised by the artist in advance (, paid for and delivered.

- Now in the case of 1 I think most people will agree the artistic freedom is untouchable. It is untouchable, because the artist takes the risk of not being able to sell it - if s/he intends to sell it at all.
- In the case of 2 - the artist still has some freedom, but s/he is also restricted by the clients demands (a) / his/hers own advertisement (, because the patrons pay for it with the expectation to get what was advertised and/or what they ordered.

I would argue that computer games fall into category 2.
 They are advertised in advance. Customers make their decision wether to buy them or not based on the ad. The payment is made and then we get to enjoy the product.

With that said, I think the call for artistic freedom is not a valid response to the fans. We all know what the ads showed and what Bioware representatives said.

I do believe my reasoning is sound, but if you see a flaw, please let me know.

Also I ran a quick search with the words "Art" and "freedom" but got 0 results. If this is adressed elsewhere, please redirect me.