3 ms·
Concerning your first statement, that the curation history is crippled: Obviously, you can get your hands on the artwork of the game if you want to, you just ha
by replax 15y ago
Concerning your first statement, that the curation history is crippled:
Obviously, you can get your hands on the artwork of the game if you want to, you just have to pay for it. Same as you have to pay for that picasso if you want to "curate" it. I don't see many people complaining that entry to a gallery should be free (although I would agree that it would be a very good thing and happened already in the UK) and that you are entitled a free copy of the artworks (by free I mean that you only have to cover the reproduction cost) to play around with.
So, please, you may get the full artwork for $2 on Amazon/Steam/Whereever.
- pyalot 15y agoYou're comparing interactive art to painting, which is a flawed analogy. This isn't about cheap, or free, and it's only cursory about freedom. It's about that in order to curate digital history, you have to be able to redistribute it, and to be able to keep the software running.
- replax 15y agoI agree that it is not the best comparison. It is the best I could come up with... The problem might be that I compared out of context - a texture is not very different from a painting (in theory, physical anomalies aside) - I did not intent to compare paintings to complete games. However, the interactivity results from the combination of the textures ("static part", somewhat comparable to paintings) with the code (making the textures interactive, animating them etc.). So I would come to the conclusion that the interactive part has been shared freely.