How responsible is an artist if one of their works is so vivid it comes to life, and performs nefarious deeds?

How responsible is an artist if one of their works is so vivid it comes to life, and performs nefarious deeds?

Remember to ignore /pol/tards

OP: is the artist aware of their talent's results? I'm imagining a FF6 scenario where Relm's painting comes to life and they have to fight it.

This would be the first time it happened for them.

or, even worse:

They made a wide array of things, and then some time later, they started coming to life.

>They made a wide array of things, and then some time later, they started coming to life.
Now THIS is a plot hook! Imagine a bunch of fantastical monsters (moreso than your typical medieval fantasy simulator) suddenly appearing and the only thing they seem to have in common is that they each appeared in the vicinity of an extremely wealthy individual's residence. Lots of opportunities for red herrings with lycanthropes, evil noble schemes, etc. until someone with an artistic background realizes where they've seen one of the monsters before. After that, they not only have to track down where all the artist's paintings ended up (possibly traveling to several foreign nations in the process), but they might also have to convince some snooty nobles to let them destroy their expensive paintings from that artist as a precautionary measure even if they haven't come alive yet!

Or you could, if you wanted, cram them all into a single estate, and trap the players in it, for a real haunted house arc.

That's not taking into account whether the party would all be on the same page about destroying the paintings. Depending on the fame and beauty of the paintings there's an argument to be made that, as cultural artifacts, they're more valuable than most peoples lives.

I really like this idea. I have a player in my campaign whose quest involves finding beautiful art to emulate. I think I'll use this idea when I get the chance.

There's always that one elf.

If this is the first time it's happened, and the artist had no way to expect that this would happen, then I'd say they're not culpable at all.

If it happens again, things are different. Knowing your painting would come to life, and not creating responsibly, would mean that you're directly responsible for everything your creation does.

I just came here to say I fucking love Kirby and the Crystal Share, and that shit was my jam when I was younger.

That is all

In a world where this happens incidentally, is commonly known to happen on a regular basis, and not as a result of magic being performed on the work, it is the artist's responsibility to secure his works by the usual means.

I will say however that I don't think a work can betray the vision of its creator. If it is rendered wickedly but the artist reveals in his work even the slightest glint in the eye of the subject, and that the glint is meant to show a gentle nature even as it bares its fangs, the animated form will of course be harmless. In this way you can consider animated works to be a familiar or summon often bound to the command of its creator, unless the artist's intent was to portray a chaotic beast with no master.

Also keep in mind that a lazy, inexperienced, or otherwise bad artist's creations will be feeble/sick. Someone without impeccable form cannot create deadly incarnations of terror and mayhem with just an "oopsie"

one of the PCs is the famed artist, who the world regards as "having given up painting ages ago for unknown reasons" and is believed to be a brilliant recluse while his works climb in value, but he's actually been scouring the globe looking to destroy his own creations once the curse manifest itself.

I'd argue that it's entirely possible for a creation made entirely in innocence and joy to go bad.
All sorts of ways.
Like insisting its creator owes it a soul, or getting bitter that it is not popular any more, and forming dark pacts.

Kirby is sick, man.
I loved all the ones where you weren't thread.

>Remember to ignore /pol/tards
What?

Nothing to see here, move along.

Presumably posts were deleted
also THOSE QUINTS ARE WASTED ON THE LIKES OF THESE!

though, you are dead correct about them being real weak if they aren't done well.

A missingno scenario should only happen if it's done badly... just right.

Thanks for the tip, Satan!

If they where actually trying to do that then yes.

If it was accidental I can’t blame them.

>A missingno scenario should only happen if it's done badly... just right.
Explain.

They're a bad parent.

It'd take a Picasso to cause a missingno scenario

Meh I didn't really think of what to do with human-level intelligences, only animals, beasts, etc.
I get where you're coming from with the missingno thing. Aside: in image recognition there's the concept of "adversarial examples" where changing one Pixel changes the classification from dog to cat, or manages to "see" a sailboat when it's just random noise. In this case, classifying garbage as a powerful being of some sort. But this is assuming there's an independent actor somehow granting life based on it's own perception of the image, or that the paint itself can mix a certain way, rather than a manifestation of the artist's vision like how I imagined it

>but they might also have to convince some snooty nobles to let them destroy their expensive paintings from that artist as a precautionary measure

By "convince", do you mean "stab the noble, burn the painting, then burn the building to cover tracks" ?

Well, you know how in mad science, when you fuck up, you mostly make horrible blob abominations that can't breathe properly and want you to kill them?

But sometimes, when you fuck up, you create an unstoppable bioterror?

Like that, but with paintings.

Well you sold me.

Well, good.
Really, depending on how exactly this painting shit, it could be anything from a strong monster to a corruptive one.