Objectivism & Individualism

[Dorian]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to these forums. I'm a 23 year old objectivist (or I try my best) working in video games. I'm a game designer. Anyways, now that we are past the introduction, I recently was struggling with an issue in philosophy & arts. I came up with my own solution but I'm curious what you all think.

I noticed that in many of my all-time favorite movies, books, and video games there was a large degree of individualism, many of them also being great sellers. So I asked myself, are these great arts great because they're very individualistic? I truly believe many of the best arts are extremely individualistic. At the same time I am not a fan of non-objective art, or abstract art, such as Picasso.

I started asking myself this question because of something that came up at work. We were trying to decide what game to make next. One way to approach this is to be extremely scientific. So we gathered as much scientific evidence as we could to help understand what people want, and of these, what worked best for our company. It was very objective.

I was not too pleased with the results. We came to a strong conclusion. I could not deny it, the results were very factual. Subjectively, I did not want to make this game. I would have rather made a game I would personally love and want to make. How was I to be very passionate about the game if it was not the game I wanted to make?

Then I started thinking about my favorite arts again, especially modern ones that sold really well. Not only were they very individualistic, but they also happened to fit the right nitch at the right time. They were exactly what people wanted at the time. Did they go through the same process?

I concluded that this is not an either or situation. Completely individualistic art is very hit or miss, sometimes it is what people want, and sometimes it is not. I can also imagine the worst case scenario of completely objective art lacking ownership, passion or emotion. I decided the best way to approach this was to balance individual views with objective views. I would go forward and work on this game that I personally did not want to make. After all, it had the highest potential to make more money. However, I am going to be very passionate and put as much individualism as I can into it. Otherwise I would be a fraud. I am being paid to create games, and if I did not put my full self into it then I wouldn't be fulfilling my end of the employment deal.

Anyways that my story. I can't tell you what game I am working on yet, but I will in the future. Also, it's a very common desire to express your own personally fantasy video game. I get it all the time. The game we decided to make is just that, decided. Sorry! I don't mind hearing your ideas if you want to share but don't count on it being adopted.

[softwareNerd]

Dorian,

Welcome to the forum.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "individualistic art", "objective art".

As I understand it, you're saying that your company chose to produce something that would sell as opposed to whatever idea you had suggested. It's nearly impossible for an outsider to tell whether such a decision was right or wrong. For instance, suppose an editor is choosing between two books: one about a struggling architect who makes buildings the way he wants and to hell with everyone else; the second, a thriller that is not particularly original but good enough to sell well. If the architect book is "The Fountainhead", that would be the right choice; however, if the architect book was written about a hero with all the moral and character traits of Howard Roark, but written in a boring way, then that would not be the right choice. It would not be the right choice, because the decision is being made about a novel, rather than a moral treatise.

Producing something that one knows will sell is the standard approach; and perfectly valid in the absence of better ideas. However, may people who do the selection take this approach precisely because they too think that something radically different would be "very hit or miss, sometimes it is what people want, and sometimes it is not". The real problem is that the decision maker has not been able to figure out exactly what people will want, if it is offered.

Figuring out what people will want requires one to think through the fundamental reasons about why people like and dislike the various options currently presented. What makes this more difficult is that simply asking people is insufficient, because they will often give you reasons that reflect current concrete implementations rather than the more abstract underlying reason. In Rand's case, for instance, from "The Romantic Manifesto" and "The Art of Fiction" one can see how much thought she gave to understanding the nature of art and its purpose in human life. By understanding the underlying reasons that make art good or bad, she was able to write great fiction that also sold extremely well.

This process is not that different outside the world of art. If one is making some other new product, for instance, many market surveys will end up telling you to make a product that is slightly better than the ones out there, but which pretty much combines all the best features already available in competing products. That type of survey won't help create a radically different product, which serves the underlying need in a completely innovative way. Doing that requires deeper thought about the essential nature and context of the need. (I'm not knocking surveys. Once one has analysed the fundamentals, one may still have to go back and do a survey that helps one confirm the essentials and the number of potential customers out there.)

[Bold Standard]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to these forums. I'm a 23 year old objectivist (or I try my best) working in video games. I'm a game designer.

Hello. : )

May I ask what books you have read by Ayn Rand? That would help me to better understand the context you're coming from.

Then I started thinking about my favorite arts again, especially modern ones that sold really well. Not only were they very individualistic, but they also happened to fit the right nitch at the right time. They were exactly what people wanted at the time.

I don't know what your favorite arts are, but a lot of art that I enjoy contains themes that favor individualism (and volition, benevolent universe, comprehensibility, etc); and much of it was not successful at first, but over the long term was significantly more successful than initially successful competition that failed to uphold those themes.

An example would be Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, which eventually became an enormous success after being rejected by numerous publishers, and receiving very little press and advertising from its publisher initially. It became popular through word of mouth and now continues to sell over a hundred thousand copies a year, 60 years later.

Or, with Atlas Shrugged.. I don't see how it could be shown that AS was what people *wanted* (at least, what they knew they wanted). It seems like all of the literary trends of the time leading up to it being published were in the opposite direction. But I know very little about the science of marketing, and you seem knowledgeable about it. So maybe you could have anticipated the receptivity to Ayn Rand's books, when it seems that it might be counterintuitive for them to have been so successful (at least, the publishers she solicited early on seemed to think so).

Edited February 13, 2007 by Bold Standard

[Cogito]

Hi everyone,

Hi Dorian! How'd you come by us?

I noticed that in many of my all-time favorite movies, books, and video games there was a large degree of individualism, many of them also being great sellers. So I asked myself, are these great arts great because they're very individualistic? I truly believe many of the best arts are extremely individualistic. At the same time I am not a fan of non-objective art, or abstract art, such as Picasso.

I'd defintely agree, although individualistic is a somewhat vague term in this context.

I started asking myself this question because of something that came up at work. We were trying to decide what game to make next. One way to approach this is to be extremely scientific. So we gathered as much scientific evidence as we could to help understand what people want, and of these, what worked best for our company. It was very objective.

This doesn't sound too objective... "What people want" is not the proper, objective standard for determing the value of a art qua art. If you want to talk in terms of an objective method method for determining the value of art as a profit-making tool, I'd say that this is only really a proper standard in the shorter term. For long term, positive results you need a new standard.

I was not too pleased with the results. We came to a strong conclusion. I could not deny it, the results were very factual. Subjectively, I did not want to make this game. I would have rather made a game I would personally love and want to make. How was I to be very passionate about the game if it was not the game I wanted to make?

A desire to work on art that fits your values is not subjective... What those values are may or may not be, but we don't have enough context to tell either way.

Then I started thinking about my favorite arts again, especially modern ones that sold really well. Not only were they very individualistic, but they also happened to fit the right nitch at the right time. They were exactly what people wanted at the time. Did they go through the same process?

I'd say that for the most part no, or if they did it was a coincidence. A truly good artist does not make his art simply because it will sell well. He has other motivations.

Hope I've given you something to chew on, and once again, welcome!

[Dorian]

May I ask what books you have read by Ayn Rand? That would help me to better understand the context you're coming from.

I've read Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, and Anthem. I'm interested in reading more but right now I'm going through the Sword of Truth series.

Hi Dorian! How'd you come by us?

Someone I've talked to a few times online from Atlas Sphere told me about this place.

Thanks for the insight everyone. I really can't give better details on my specific situation at the time but the responses certainly do help. I'll try my best to relate but this may be difficult.

Imagine Ayn Rand had a set of information available to her before writing The Fountainhead. Say this information explained that fiction sold more than science fiction, fantasy, etc. To be even more specific, say that the information suggested that the best selling fiction books were related to working class Americans. All this information would do is tell her is what people are most interested in, what themes or settings are most engaging, what statistically catches the most attention. The results may not be completely true but it's nice to know. This information would help her confirm that choosing the life and setting of Architect was best, or at least help her feel more comfortable with her decision.

Making games isn't much like making books but this is the best example I could think of. There's a lot of financial risk when it comes to committing to a game so we tried our best to find information that says we are probable of being successful.

A truly good artist does not make his art simply because it will sell well. He has other motivations.

I certainly wouldn't create art with the only purpose of making money, but it is a strong objective of mine. I also would prefer long term success if the total results were more positive.

[aequalsa]

To be even more specific, say that the information suggested that the best selling fiction books were related to working class Americans.

The way you describe this made me immediately think of Firefly. If you are not familiar with it, it was a sci-fi series about a future version of a working class guy, but had strong layers of heroism and proper selfishness woven into it. So from what I gather, your approach is just fine. Theoretically you should be able to take any backdrop or set of particulars as your context...even to the point of a priest or social worker living in wonderland(for the record, I don't recommend those) and apply principles of individualism or proper morality.

Even in reverse this works with antiheroism. You can have bad guys operating on bad principles that end with bad results. The only problem comes when they try to make happy results for bad behaviours. Or a tragic ending for someone who acted rightly(toilers of the sea).

I think the most important element in not betraying philosphy is that the story be consistent with reality.

[Cogito]

I think the most important element in not betraying philosphy is that the story be consistent with reality.

I think this needs a slight qualification. It need not be consistent with reality in the sense that all the laws of physics must apply (you can have magic and anti-gravity and feminine men [that's a joke aimed at AequalsA, take no heed]), but it need be consistent with the rules of philosophy.

[aequalsa]

I think this needs a slight qualification. It need not be consistent with reality in the sense that all the laws of physics must apply (you can have magic and anti-gravity and feminine men [that's a joke aimed at AequalsA, take no heed]), but it need be consistent with the rules of philosophy.

Actually, youre right and it does need some clarification. In fiction it needs to be believable. And a story can be 500 years in the future with purple dragons and a race of people that evolved to have no feet and gravity was reversed, but you can't change the causality in human behavior without damaging the credibility. Most people seem capable of suspending judgement for every metaphysical fact that can exist as long as they can relate to it ethically. Does that make more sense?

[intellectualammo]

as long as they can relate to it ethically. Does that make more sense?

More: as long as they can relate to it, period.

[intellectualammo]

I think this needs a slight qualification. It need not be consistent with reality in the sense that all the laws of physics must apply (you can have magic and anti-gravity and feminine men [that's a joke aimed at AequalsA, take no heed]), but it need be consistent with the rules of philosophy.

Yes! And that is exactly why I am enjoying the Harry Potter series.