Capitalism, as tends to be championed, is also an unachievable idealism.  It is built from this mythos that if you do a hard day's work, you will get a just reward for it, and that whatever you achieve is justified by the work that you must have put in to get there.  Unfortunately, this leads to a hideously warped view of reality, since things just don't work that way.  They key point is that any system we create to steer our societies toward some common goal will always have the disadvantage of being somewhat counter to natural human behavior - else you would never need to create a system for it in the first place.  And if that system is too open (like, the free market being too free, for example), then it will tend to revert toward the natural human state, where might makes right, the strong take advantage of the weak, etc.  Of course, it's even worse than that, because human behavior evolved within a small group tribal structure - the massive civilizations we have today could not operate under those kinds of evolved behaviors.

That being said, capitalism is the best structure humans have come up with so far.  But it does need to be disentangled from the mythos and restrained in intelligent ways or it becomes as much a vehicle for nefarious work as any other system created and then subverted by mankind from the dawn of time.

Do you happen to know if the new release of Unity is still compatible with Antares, or should I wait to do the update?

I think it just depends on your viewpoint, as you've already touched on.  If you see the universe as something that naturally grows from an initial state and continually compounds upon itself, then really it is just realizing itself, and whatever naturally occurs is what it is, with no judgement of correctness being even applicable to the discussion.  If you see it as the realization of a plan (like a game or other work of art), then sure, that realization could be in error as regards the initial vision.  There's a theological debate here that I don't really care to get into, but I think it's pretty obvious where it lies 

My guess is that's aimed at a certain population that wants to make videos of a... shall we say carnal nature.

Ok, ok, I'm sold.  I at least owe it a try.  I am very good with logic, but not necessarily code - just because I prefer spending my time learning about art and art tools rather than the various syntaxes and vagaries of different programming languages.  But the two games you mention are complete complex virtual worlds, so that more than anything alleviates my fears.  I'll give it a whirl and report back when I have something going.

I've seen you talk about visual programming, and I've been hesitant to try it because I have this feeling that I won't have the level of control I want.  I did just come up with a game idea that involves mostly navigating and looking/picking things up, so maybe that's a good entry point to try this out with.  Thanks for the suggestion.

I'd like to ask another question of the community before I commit to this.  Corona doesn't seem to support 3D; what are some good similar solutions that  poeple like?  I've worked with Unity, and while I like the level building environment, I'm not to keen on the coding environment, and I'm not sure I want to commit to Javascript or C#.  Has anyone used Shiva3D?  Or Nobound 3D?  Other favorites?

Thanks for the feedback.  I think I'm going to give it a try.

Kickstarter is supposed to be really good, actually, even for small independent projects, though I don't have any personal experience with them.  The best part is that you typically don't pay the investment back!  You just give the investors some other form of value, like advanced collectors editions of your game, or signed concept work, stuff like that.

Thanks, I'll check it out!

I guess my feeling is that it's the artist's job to try and touch those truths that cannot be objectively communicated through words, math, etc.  A lot of chaos in it, but the chaos is also the most potent source of things and of order (see the alchemical concept of massa confusa, the creative chaos).  That's a whole new discussion, though.

I was speaking recently to my brother in law who does mostly commercial Flash work (advertising).  I was showing him some of my Flash stuff and bemoaning the fact that while I'm pretty good with flash I just don't quite have the programming chops to make a truly complete and releasable product on my own.  He then recommended I try Corona - http://www.anscamobile.com/corona/

I am just curious if anyone has used this before, and whether you have any opinions about it.

It uses lua.  My BIL suggests that if I can learn actionscript, lua ought to be an easy step for me.  Any programmers here have any thoughts on lua?  It seems a useful thing to learn, professionally as well as for my own work, but as an artist I want to be careful what I sink my time into learning, especially with all the actual artwork there is for me to spend my time on.

Right, that's a reasonable point - I do, in fact, think it's just fine for the artist to give guidance to the viewer.  In fact, it's OK to want the viewer to see the work a certain way.  But the fact is that not everyone is going to get it, and the more expectations you have of the viewer, the more disappointed you will ultimately be.  Art is a mercurial beast.  If you try to control the presentation too much after it's already left your studio, you will do damage to it.  The world changes.  The media of your work ages, for better or for worse.  Every person brings different eyes to the piece.  Contexts constantly change.  You can't control any of that, and if you try you will either reduce your audience away to almost nothing, or tick people off such that your work is viewed in an undeservedly negative light.  Create your piece, give your guidance, then let it, and its viewers, find their own way from that point.  Don't insist on the viewer's eventual destination.

I also do believe that the creative process is at root a wild thing, and that the best art, that truly deserves to be called art, comes from a place within that's not really within our control, and we are as much facilitators as creators.  Yes, you have to have the mechanical tools and talents to wrangle and produce that wild thing, but the wild thing itself is, well, wild.  I realize not everyone will be on board with me on this last part, but that's why I separate it from the first paragraph.  I do believe it, though.

Maybe it would help if I replace "arrogance" with "hubris"?  Or maybe I'm trying to hard now

No, I'm the one who said it's arrogant, sorry if that disrupted what you were trying to say, Ghostwheel.  I'm sure I'm not communicating well either.  I'm pro-elitism, but anti-arrogance, which might seem a bit contradictory on the surface - I'll have to think about if I can explain it better.  I'm also pro-aesthetics in a similar way to what Michaël argued.  I do believe we put deeper meanings into our work, whether we intend to or not.  If not, the work wouldn't be compelling.  Actually, I think the Duchamps example illustrates the situation well - no matter what the artist puts in, it's between the piece and the viewer as to what the result will be.  I don't agree with the statement 100%, but it's definitely close enough that I won't try to garble the issue further with my nitpickings.

I guess for me the main point (which I didn't address in my first response) is that even in an optimal setting, different people will relate to the work in different ways, and getting all hot and bothered that someone has a "wrong" interpretation is pointless and even a bit arrogant.  Quality we should still strive for, and is a different issue, in my opinion.