Genuinely curious, not trying to be a jerk…
Is there a source for this, or is this an assumption?
The motivation is everything and there is only one first priority. Maybe the artists are serving a different motivation in the guise of the first, I just don’t think it means their work is absolved of being anti-art.
People will disagree with you on whether Michaelangelo’s work is propagandistic, myself included. The claim that you can appreciate what you believe is propoganda seems contradictory. You might disagree with those who think that these corporate-motivated stories are viewed as propagandistic in the same vein, though.
Watching dev interviews prior to Dragonflight, they seemed excited to write these stories.
Individual dev accounts on social media also say things to that effect.
How so?
If you believe it’s propaganda, I don’t understand how you could appreciate it. Help me understand what you mean when you say that you appreciate it.
Because art is art. If something is aesthetically pleasing, why would I care who paid for it?
3 Likes
Hmmm… that’s interesting, I’ll have to go back and watch some of the interviews to try and get a better first hand feel for this.
I’ll lazily lean on your familiarity with them for the moment, though, if your amenable-
Did it seem like these pitched characters were flat out turned down in years prior, or what was the implication there? As I recall there was rather subtle representation in Legion and BFA. Were quest designers just not give “full reign” at that time, perhaps?
I think that’s asking the wrong question. Why art was created certainly matters. If it’s created for a propagandistic venture, the implication is that it’s lying. I find no beauty in a lie, so I’m curious if you do.
That is the implication I get, from following the various revelations of Blizzard’s internal office culture over the last few years.
I disagree. Much of Renaissance art was created either for the church - whose beliefs I do not align with - or for rich patrons who wanted vanity portraits. Knowing that, can I not appreciate the craft? The physical, present beauty of a piece of art or - in the case of the matter at hand - the value of representation and normalization of marginalized communities in visible media are things that I can consider independently of the motivation that created it.
I honestly find your outlook as strange as you seem to find mine.
1 Like
If I find your outlook odd it’s because I hear a contradiction.
I’m not saying you can’t appreciate the raw technical mastery that might be seen in propaganda, but I don’t think it goes much deeper than that.
Case in point: I particularly enjoy the work of Otto Dix, who was a notable artist in the Neue Sachlichkeit movement in the Weimar Republic predating WW2. I don’t particularly care for the aesthetics but it’d be kind of foolish to say the movement and his central place in it wasn’t an important window into German society at the time.
Artistic endeavor is aimed toward something. If it’s aimed toward a lie I find it a perversion of the endeavor that utterly undermines the aesthetic beauty of it. I find it impossible to find propoganda beautiful beyond an acknowledgement of technical skill, and that’s superficial to the deeper meaning of the work, which can’t be divorced from the motivation behind it.
Hmm… That really makes me wonder why they were being turned down initially. Previous story directors seemed like they would be fine with it, but maybe they were just trying to avoid drama through omission?
I would really love a Q and A panel with everyone from the quest designers to Danuser himself able to queried, just to get an idea where everyone’s head is at.
Some of it, yes. If we were to apply this reasoning to the LGBT quests, then that aim would likely be toward either actively creating diverse representation, or in some cases simply writers wanting to depict a relationship that is personal and relatable to them.
The corporation pays for this, and supports it, and in some ways likely profits off of it. But that’s just funding - would the actual artist’s aim not be the true value of the art?
Well, like I said, the frat culture at Blizzard was also homophobic. There were LGBT people that suffered harassment and abuse as well as women. It does not seem like an environment where those people would have felt safe to tell this kind of story.
Eh, they seem to be trying to distance themselves from their past, understandably, so I doubt this would ever happen.
Oh, sorry if I wasn’t very clear, I was referring mostly to the period around Legion and BFA, when we did start to see inclusion of these narratives in the world, but just not as explicitly as we are at present. I’m just curious as to the motivation and reasoning. Blizz definitely had a the fratboy thing going on, but some content still persisted into the game which tells me that it couldn’t have been suppressed entirely or at large.
There’s also more than likely an entirely new crop of quest designers since that time, so tracking the thought surrounding all of this over time likely involves generations of unrelated people.
IDK… I just want good story, tbh, lgbt narratives included in that.
its 100% PANDERING
1 Like
Right, but those were developed under the pre-lawsuit culture. The representation was extremely easter-eggy then, even Shadowlands was fairly understated, with the Pelagos story being buried in dialogue that you had to actively look for.
There’s only so much story you can expect from side quests - the Brights were mainly a vehicle to teach the new crafting and item quality systems, which I think it did fine. All the other LGBT quests I’ve seen have been perfectly fine and not overbearing at all.
Sure, but right now I’m applying it to claim that Michaelangelo’s work is propagandistic.
I’m also saying all artistic endeavor is pointed toward something, not that only some of it is. Even art for its own sake is pointed at the value of art itself and its purposes. Artistic endeavor is so much more than technical skill, and appreciating propaganda for that alone is really superficial.
If raw mastery alone was what characterized art, the works of Michaelangelo would be a lot more crowded for attention among other masterful works. What cause is there to downplay the ideal the artist is pursuing and motivation to pursue that ideal and then simultaneously say that it’s inconsequential, while in other cases the ideal and motivation are why it’s good?
On one hand, you’re saying you like the works of the Sistine Chapel for its beauty, in spite of the motivation behind it and the objective of the work (by calling it propaganda), but saying the motivation and and objective of Blizzard’s narrative design is why it’s valuable.
I don’t see how you’re reconciling these contradictions.
I’m not saying that. I recognize that the motivation and objective of Blizzard is to make money.
But “Blizzard” as a corporate identity did not personify and start writing quests. People did that, and those people’s motivation can be something I support. Their reasons for writing what they did can be valuable.
You value art for its purpose, that’s fine. But aesthetics and the study thereof is not so black and white to make the claim that there can be no true appreciation for it that does not fit your mold.
This is true, and believe it or not the reason for that was intentional however as that’s how a Democratic Republic is supposed to function. If this sounds confusing or strange, let me break it down a bit so folks understand the intent behind it.
The idea in practice is that any States that have such a narrow minded view (such as the ideas of prohibiting Abortion or Same Sex Marriage) are states that see their populations leave in favor of states that have more contemporary views. Businesses leave and the state’s economy goes to pieces because of this.
As the State’s population shrinks, the state gets less representatives and thus less representation in the House, because people wanted nothing to do with them and left. California is experiencing this trend in practice at the moment due to the crime / homeless situation.
Food for thought.
You are saying that when you go out of your way to say that what Blizzard is including in their art is valuable, or that this particular subject matter is inarguable in its value.
Nothing is above scrutiny in art, from aesthetic to purpose or motivation. The very suggestion makes the work propagandistic if the work was yours.
You’re basing some value of the art in what its objectives are, which you don’t seem to be doing with Michelangelo’s work when you frame it as propaganda.
You could still say that the propagandistic aspect of the work detracts from its overall beauty, and that you can still find the technical skill awe-inspiring. That’d be consistent. But you’re not divorcing motive from the work when you do that.
I said earlier that my appreciation of Otto Dix wasn’t for the aesthetic but for the viewpoint it allowed into the culture of Germany at the time, and I did that to make the case appreciation of art can be for extant circumstances divorced from aesthetic alone.
I’m saying it’s the most superficial way to appreciate and understand art.
Sure I am - would I value Christian art more if I believed in the subject matter? Most likely.
I don’t think that aspect of the work has anything to do with its beauty. I find those to be two entirely different qualities that don’t need to affect each other.
Can the opposite not be true? Can you appreciate art divorced from its circumstances? I don’t personally find that superficial but if so, I feel like art is one of the realms where superficiality can be excused.
To return to the original subject, I suppose you’re right that I do value the extant circumstances here more than the aesthetic quality of the art itself. The writing on these quests isn’t something particularly noteworthy. But we fundamentally disagree on those circumstances - you seem to place the lion’s share of importance on Blizzard’s motivations rather than the writer’s. I view Blizzard as nothing more than a patron in this scenario - they’re supplying the means and funding but the writer is the artist, not them.
Anyways, that’ll have to be my closing remark, I won’t have much time for forums later.
We may disagree but I appreciate this conversation.
1 Like
There is a chasm of difference in the secular appreciation of Christian works and the claim that it’s propagandistic. I’m specifically attacking the claim that it’s propagandistic and that it’s contradictory to the claim you can still appreciate it.
If the intent behind the work has nothing to do with it, why does Blizzard’s specific inclusion of subject matter make it inarguably valuable? Intent matters entirely or it entirely doesn’t matter. I don’t think you’re going to contradict yourself now and say Blizzard’s inclusion of specific themes is entirely neutral. Am I wrong?
The point you’re making is unclear. I’m saying that aesthetic appreciation on its own is superficial. Yes, you can divorce art from its circumstance. What does what to do with the superficiality of appreciating art for its aesthetics alone?
Well, this is kind of what I suspected we’d get to eventually: Is mediocre art that is not masterful in composition still valuable if it’s meeting an objective? The answer here seems yes. And yes, I’m placing the lion’s share of the importance on Blizzard’s motivations because there is only one first priority. There may be others that align with it, but there’s still one above all.
I don’t agree, and that aligns with what I’d consider the inverse. Masterful art serving a lie is not art. Art that is not masterful does not become so because it’s pursuant to a desirable objective.
It’s been fun, have a nice night.