4 ms·
It honestly seems a little silly to worry about the purity of the intent of an artist. That Davis did it for the money is just "meh". Most people work for mon
by cogman10 2y ago
It honestly seems a little silly to worry about the purity of the intent of an artist.
That Davis did it for the money is just "meh". Most people work for money.
- formerly_proven 2y agowe at hacker news work for first principles instead
- standyro 2y agoI wish there was a hacker news minus hacker news
- wlonkly 2y agoI can give you hacker news minus hackers?
- nunez 2y agoreddit.com/r/technology
- B1FF_PSUVM 2y agohttp://n-gate.com/hackernews/ http://n-gate.com/hackernews/ , but it sleeps
- the_af 2y agoI don't think the concern is that Davis "did it for the money", and that's not a fair representation of why some of us mock Jim Davis. I don't think anybody is arguing comic authors shouldn't make money out of their work. The concern is that Garfield is the product of conscious market research and not whatever we imagine a comic artist goes through when creating their comics. You can dismiss this as some ridiculous search for "purity", but wouldn't you say most people imagine Watterson, Schultz, etc. went through a process more or less "I liked these other cartoons, and wouldn't it be cool to make something about <idea>/<childhood memories>/<something that inspired me>/<something that worries me>" vs "hey, let's make money, what kind of character would make me the most money?". Davis is not the only one, of course.
- weard_beard 2y agoArt without money is madness. Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time. 99% of everything commercially produced is somewhere between these and, if made by a person, part of a cannon, a body of work that grows and changes as the person does. Just because an artist invites us into their mind does not mean we don’t owe them the respect we’d give a stranger. At least that’s how I look at it.
- the_af 2y agoWe don't owe Jim Davis any kind of respect as an artist. He must earn it. In the scale you're describing, he leans heavily towards making money and away from the art part. It's OK to feel scorn for this. It's also OK to respect it, but that's not me. > Art without money is madness This isn't what my comment was about, but I cannot refrain from answering: art can exist perfectly well without money. I'd say the vast majority of art humanity produces is not related to money at all. It is definitely not madness without money. > Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time. Sadly, I don't think the former is true, and I don't think the latter matters enough.
- weard_beard 2y agoDifferent pen strokes for different folks. I used to binge read those meaningless colorful flip books to put myself to sleep. Benadryl without the side effects. Is it art? It felt like the smear of endless days I couldn’t escape and it was comforting. It didn’t challenge me, but I treasure it. Like a child’s fairy tale that never ends and every day was just… ever after
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jjulius 2y ago>Art without money is madness. ... wha? ... huh? I've created so much art in my spare time, for the sheer love and joy of it. It's done for me, but I've shared it with friends and family and they've also greatly appreciated it, and sometimes participated in it with me with splendid results. Money has never entered the equation. Am I missing something, or am I correct in my reading of that statement? If I'm correct, I don't mean to be judgemental, but that's a horribly disappointing view of art, whatever the medium, and I'm sorry that you feel that way.