4 ms·
I appreciate that you’re just quoting someone else’s work here. But let me say that this is by miles the worst take I’ve read on Calvin & Hobbes, and one of the
by sonofhans 4y ago
I appreciate that you’re just quoting someone else’s work here. But let me say that this is by miles the worst take I’ve read on Calvin & Hobbes, and one of the saddest and most dehumanizing things I’ve ever read about the intersection of art and commerce.
They author fundamentally misunderstands art: “The value of artistic work is in reaching people.” They claim repeatedly that artists have an obligation to use commerce to spread their work far and wide: “Can you not see that in denying the syndicates profits that countless others were harmed?”
It is a long elucidation of exactly what Watterson has spent his life trying to avoid. It’s literally calling the man “selfish” for refusing to allow others to profit from his work. It’s kneeling at the altar of capitalism and kissing the ring of commercial exploitation, and prizing both those things above simple human creativity, and the ability of artists to curate their own works.
- moviewise 4y ago>It’s literally calling the man “selfish” for refusing to allow others to profit from his work. If the object was to prevent others —— i.e. the syndicates who helped him develop the comic strip and helped to promote and distribute it —— from profiting from his work, why wouldn't you call this selfish? Bill Watterson chose to syndicate "Calvin & Hobbes," that is, he chose to sell it, so he fully engaged in capitalism. He just didn't want to profit (or let others profit) from it in other ways, e.g. selling plushy toys etc. But he profited enough from newspaper syndication and book publishing to retire at 35.