Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 3841-3845 (1-5 October 2018)
Perfectly Reasonable:
Bubbles' questions about the Bar König might be profitably directed to the Girl Genius forum.
Also, defend your right to arm bears.
cybersmurf:
--- Quote from: Perfectly Reasonable on 10 Oct 2018, 15:04 ---Bubbles' questions about the Bar König might be profitably directed to the Girl Genius forum.
Also, defend your right to arm bears.
--- End quote ---
Bar König? Looks like your autocorrect struck. I'd be worried if the Bear King turned out to be the bar king though.
Thrudd:
--- Quote from: dutchrvl on 10 Oct 2018, 13:19 ---Interesting, you seem to equate the need for artists to make a living to having to perform/produce their art according to what their audience expects from them. I respectfully, but strongheartedly, disagree with that view.
An artist does not need to conform to anything/anyone, really (unless of course they were paid for a well-defined piece of art according to certain parameters). This has nothing to do with narcissism. They make their art the way they want to, and whether they accept a loss of audience/popularity as a result is up to them. It's the same with a small business owner who decides to completely change the design of their product. That's their prerogative. They may lose all their customers and go under, sure, but that's still their right to do.
Do artists need an audience not to starve? Sure, probably. Still does not mean they need to meet expectations. In simplistic words, they do not owe their audience their survival (by not starving).
See also my post in the separate thread about this.
--- End quote ---
Oy vay
Is my prose that opaque?
I thought I had put it rather plainly
* That artists can do what they want for good or ill
* Art should challenge their audience but it is not a requirement
* Art is entertainment yet also a social record of the times
* Art can be used to educate or induce debate - Make people think - but if heavy handed will have the opposite effect
* Art needs to connect to their audience at some level or else everything else is lost <- this is what seems to be overlooked
And your last statement make zero logical sense. For anyone who lives by their art there is no "probably".
Unless an "artist" has some form of support from some other source they are dependant on being appreciated to survive.
Mozart Leonardo Chopin .... Even your everyday street Busker ..... History says that if you don't have an audience or a patron YOU WILL STARVE or in the modern age, be living on social assistance.
dutchrvl:
--- Quote from: Thrudd on 11 Oct 2018, 08:04 ---
--- Quote from: dutchrvl on 10 Oct 2018, 13:19 ---Interesting, you seem to equate the need for artists to make a living to having to perform/produce their art according to what their audience expects from them. I respectfully, but strongheartedly, disagree with that view.
An artist does not need to conform to anything/anyone, really (unless of course they were paid for a well-defined piece of art according to certain parameters). This has nothing to do with narcissism. They make their art the way they want to, and whether they accept a loss of audience/popularity as a result is up to them. It's the same with a small business owner who decides to completely change the design of their product. That's their prerogative. They may lose all their customers and go under, sure, but that's still their right to do.
Do artists need an audience not to starve? Sure, probably. Still does not mean they need to meet expectations. In simplistic words, they do not owe their audience their survival (by not starving).
See also my post in the separate thread about this.
--- End quote ---
Oy vay
Is my prose that opaque?
I thought I had put it rather plainly
* That artists can do what they want for good or ill
* Art should challenge their audience but it is not a requirement
* Art is entertainment yet also a social record of the times
* Art can be used to educate or induce debate - Make people think - but if heavy handed will have the opposite effect
* Art needs to connect to their audience at some level or else everything else is lost <- this is what seems to be overlooked
And your last statement make zero logical sense. For anyone who lives by their art there is no "probably".
Unless an "artist" has some form of support from some other source they are dependant on being appreciated to survive.
Mozart Leonardo Chopin .... Even your everyday street Busker ..... History says that if you don't have an audience or a patron YOU WILL STARVE or in the modern age, be living on social assistance.
--- End quote ---
Of course they'll have to find an audience with whatever art they produce if they want to survive based on their art alone, that much is clear. I used "probably" precisely because an artist does not necessarily starve if they lose their audience, only if they have no other means to an income. (my combining sure with probably was an unfortunate choice from my side. "Sure" was just a throwaway use of the word showing my general agreement with your comment, not meaning that artists absolutely had to have an audience to survive. )
Anyway, all I was saying is that an artist does not ow us their survival, in other words if they decide not to meet the audience's expectations and therefore lose income and starve to death (put morbidly), that's still their prerogative.
We honestly seem to agree on all the rest anyway, your latest post is much clearer to me in that sense. Your previous one I interpreted as expecting artists to conform to expectations. I see now that that's not what you meant.
Tova:
Edit: Added some more quotation for further context. All bolding in the quotes is mine.
I think you're in general agreement, and I agree also.
I just wanted to highlight the one point in the thread that does appear to have been lost.
--- Quote from: brilligtove on 10 Oct 2018, 00:17 ---If an artist pursues a vision I don't enjoy, I don't devote attention to that artist anymore, or at least not the work that isn't my thing. I might tell them "your new direction isn't for me" but that is followed with "but thanks for all the art you've created." I don't expect their work to conform to my expectations unless I am commissioning a piece.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Thrudd on 10 Oct 2018, 07:02 ---Now here is the thing about "artists" - you pretty much hit the nail on the head without actually pointing out the issue here yet making it out as a something positive.
The absolute narcissism when an artist says they don't need to conform to others expectations.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: dutchrvl on 10 Oct 2018, 13:19 ---An artist does not need to conform to anything/anyone, really (unless of course they were paid for a well-defined piece of art according to certain parameters). This has nothing to do with narcissism.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Thrudd on 11 Oct 2018, 08:04 ---I thought I had put it rather plainly
...
Art needs to connect to their audience at some level or else everything else is lost <- this is what seems to be overlooked
--- End quote ---
I think it was indeed put plainly, but here is what I think is the source of confusion in spite of agreement in most respects.
Saying that "artists need an audience" is manifestly not equivalent to saying that "artists must conform to expectations." They are two very different statements.
The first I can get behind.
The second, however, is patently incorrect. Many artists have found an audience in spite of failing to conform to expectations. Many artists have found an audience because they failed to conform to expectations.
I can't agree that has anything to do with narcissism.
Arrogance, maybe. Maybe. I personally think that you need a touch of arrogance to be an artist. To put a bit of yourself into a creation and then put it out there to inevitably be torn to shreds by people who don't comprehend the drive to create. It takes courage, and for that reason alone I don't have much time for people who feel it necessary to tell an artist they should be doing something else. Criticise if you will, that is your prerogative. However, the artist is not obliged to conform to your expectations.
P.S. One more edit:
--- Quote from: dutchrvl on 11 Oct 2018, 08:42 ---We honestly seem to agree on all the rest anyway, your latest post is much clearer to me in that sense. Your previous one I interpreted as expecting artists to conform to expectations. I see now that that's not what you meant.
--- End quote ---
I'm not so sure. Hence my post.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version