BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Creation >

Who do you create for?

  
 
Sax
10:23 / 10.04.03
The arguments in the comics thread about the pros and cons of submitting material to Marvel via its new Epic imprint which allegedly aims to encourage new writers and artists into the professional comics world has got me thinking.

There are many creative types here on Barbelith, and I was wondering: Who do you write/draw/make music for?

Do you do it primarily for yourself? Do you write short stories and stick them in drawers? Do you have a band that puts down tracks on tape but never plays live?

Or do you get your stuff out as much as possible and by any means necessary? Fanzines? Small press comics? Ad hoc art exhibitions in "spaces"? Website publishing?

Or do you aim to create professionally, ie do you want to make money from your work, make a career of writing or art or music? If you write novels, would you not consider a small press printing because you want to get taken on by a mainstream publisher and paid an advance and not worry about the production, packaging, marketing, selling etc of your book? Do you think there' s more value in having Epic publish your one-off Spider-Man vs The Vulture comic than in producing your own superhero comic and printing 100 copies, or vice versa?

If you do one of the above, what are your views on the other? Does one path have more or less artistic merit than another? Is a book a "real" book if it isn't published by Penguin and sold through Waterstones?

Is it right or wrong to want to make money from your work?

Thoughts?
 
 
rizla mission
11:52 / 10.04.03
hmmm...

Generally i think it goes:

if you create stuff, and make money off it - that's cool.
if you create stuff IN ORDER to make money off it - that's not cool.

As to who I create for, i suppose the answer to that one is ever-shifting and vague .. i hope i don't sound too cliched or self-righteous when I say that i make comics primarily for myself. I know I'm not terribly skilled at doing them, but i keep rolling on with them cos it's fun, and it's a nice way to express weird little stories that I dream up. It's kind of a hobby - like an old man making wooden boats in the basement, only cooler (hopefully). I only tend to show people the best ones, and when I did the first issue of my little comic a while ago, I just photocopied one for everyone who expressed at interest in seeing it and gave them away. I'll have (finally!) finished the second issue soon, and I dunno, I might try to get copies into some of the more indie-friendly British comics shops and might have to charge money for it to cover photocopying costs (cos it's bigger). Simply because it's nice if people like stuff you've done, hear their opinions on it, know whether they get a kick out of it etc. But if they don't, and nobody ever saw them, i don't think i'd be that bothered and would probably carry on. I'm definitely a believer in making things for their own sake.
 
 
William Sack
12:02 / 10.04.03
Whoa, lots of questions. I'll tackle a few. I'm not one for banging on about myself, but the thread does call for personal experiences and observations.

I have done some creative writing online which started out 99% for myself and nobody else. I suppose it would have been the sort of stuff that I would have left in a drawer pre-internet. It gave me immense pleasure and satisfaction even though I was pretty convinced that the writing would just fall silently in the forest of the Net. I guess that 1% of me got something of a kick at the prospect of someone actually reading what I had written, but it really wasn't that important. I believed that what I did had 'merit' regardless of what other people might think about it. The main thing was that I enjoyed what I was doing.

Then I began to get some feedback that suggested that at least some people agreed with me. Did my stuff have any more merit for having people read it? No, not in of itself. It was an indication that other people took some pleasure from reading what I had created, which was satisfying. Epic printing your comic won't make it any better than the same thing run off for a few of your mates, but is an indication that people have confidence in your work. It is a seal of approval of sorts, though quite how far it goes is anyone's guess.

If you enjoy writing/drawing/painting/sculpting/film-making/composing/whatever, then just go for it. Have some fun. If you feel others may enjoy it, then share it - there is bound to be some way of doing so. If you want to make a bit of money while your at it - either by way of making a living or just earning a bit of beer money - then be my guest. Nothing to be ashamed of there, though I think I know where Riz is coming from when he talks about creating in order to make money.
 
 
Sax
14:21 / 10.04.03
I'm interested in this concept of deciding to be a professional creator as "uncool".

By the same token, should someone with excellent football skills get out every Sunday for his local pub team or try to get trials for Manchester United?

If you have a talent, is it some kind of "selling out" perception that means we shouldn't try to make money from it?

Why is "creating" any different from other skills or talents?
 
 
Persephone
14:55 / 10.04.03
Ha ha ha, the boss has left... now, to expound on my pet subject. (I have more than one pet subject, though. I really have something like a pet subject zoo, but that is not on topic.)

I'm getting a lot clearer about what I want for myself, but also that other people want different things for themselves. If anyone's interested, for myself what I want is the total freedom & control to do my own work* & I've consciously sacrificed the idea of professional achievement for myself. I do admire and, at times, envy people who seem to have "made it" here or there, and then I have to remind myself that I've made this specific choice for my own practice & the reasons why, which I will not bore anyone with.

Speaking more generally, I've been thinking for some time about the interaction between artistry and artistic capital. Say that artistry is the "real" artistic value of the work, and say that artistic capital is the value of the work in the marketplace. I'm imagining this like a Venn diagram (thanks to stoatie) or a matrix. Actually, the seed of this idea goes way back to Sax's thread about modern art, if you remember. But anyway, you have art in various combinations: high artistry/high artistic capital, high artistry/low artistic capital, low artistry/high artistic capital, low artistry/low artistic capital. Now I'm not saying that there's any sort of objective rule for deciding what art goes in what quadrant. All this says is, "art" isn't just one thing or the other...

The more you play with this idea, the more you see how ...mmm... how sort of organic or dynamic it is. There are so many things at work. Just for example, the whole business of artistic capital involves an artistry of its own.

--------
*I do love the web for this reason, because it's so totally cheap to get in & get up to speed. Stuff can look more "done" on a website --e.g., as opposed to manuscripts of stories, of which I have mene mene tekel upharsin.
 
 
grant
15:41 / 10.04.03
In what I do, I'm with Persephone's Venn diagrams, only picture them as the plates on a four-way scale.

I like to think my creative writing at work (which I should be doing *right now*) has a higher degree of artistry than most would perceive, but I realize that it's a low-art/high-capital (well, it pays the bills) transaction. It balances. The music I do is sort of the opposite, except I'm really fond of 1/ lo-fi aesthetics, and 2/ "disposable" pop music. I do invest a lot of myself into it, which is (because of those two "anti-art" qualities up there) a really pathetic admission, but I own that.

If I get enough art-joy out of it, I'll do it for free. You see the same thing going on all the time in indie film -- really talented pros working 16 hour days for no money because they like the script.
 
 
lentil
10:13 / 11.04.03
This is one of the largest, most overbearing and best attended inhabitants of my particular pet subject zoo.

Ultimately, I create for myself. But, I've been doing that for years now, and lots of people have seen my work, and some of those people are interested to see what I do next. To pick a recent example, I was monstrously chuffed last week when the manager of Gosh Comics told me that a couple of customers who'd picked up my mini had been in and asked if I was doing another one. Now, I've been busting my arse working on #2, have been enjoying it immensely and it would be a satisfying experience were I to shelve it on completion. However, the fact that I know I'll have an audience for this, no matter how small, is an added buzz and does change some of the thought processes I have while working. The bottom line is still "I'm gonna make this as good as I can for its own sake", but now has added "People liked the last one, and I think this is better, so I want them to really like this one". To an extent, I'm working for them (whoever "they" may be - friends, reviewers, customers, people I've traded with, whatever).

In terms of Venn diagrams pretty much everything I do is high artistry/low artistic capital, although it's strange how the status of individual pieces of work can shift about the quadrants. When I've got some work in a show, for that month the pieces have (potentially at least) high artistic capital, and then either get sold thereby realising that capital, or more often than not get taken down and return to low artistic capital languishing in the studio. Depends on the show too - if, as has happened in the past, I'm in a show with a bunch of more established artists, the increase in the artistic capital is greater, but chances are my work won't stand up to the other stuff quite as well and so the artistry could be seen to decrease.

I do have one low artistry/ high capital gig, which is as cartoonist on a magazine my ex works for. "Company Clothing" magazine to be precise, who deal with the exciting world of workwear. (Sax and grant, you think you guys earn your living through hackery?) So once a month I have to come up with a strip based around a workwear-related joke, plus spot illos as and when. It doesn't take up too much time, it pays for the rent on my studio, I enjoy drawing just about anything as it is, and I think it's good writing practice to have to wring a joke out of an utterly uninspiring brief.

On their first album Dilated Peoples have the line:

"Make that money for too many's the main concern
I say make the right music, and then your money's earnt"

Pretty naïve, but despite the amount of evidence I've seen that contradicts it, I guess this come pretty close to a guiding principle for me. Not that I necessarily believe it, but it's like "That's the way I think it should be, so I'm going to work as if it is that way". And I suppose it works. Money-wise, well, I still have a day job, but I've cut it down to 3 days a week, but more importantly I've just got on with my own shit and gradually, gradually, am getting people interested. It may sound like a cop-out or excuse, but I think the best I can say is that I've had enough encouragement from people's reactions to allow me to convince myself it's worthwhile carrying on.

Hmmm… just re-reading that last sentence got me thinking, does anyone really create just for themselves? I mean, if everything I'd done over the last five years had met with derision or disinterest I'd definitely be less enthusiastic/ confident about carrying on.

I'm interested in this concept of deciding to be a professional creator as "uncool".

By the same token, should someone with excellent football skills get out every Sunday for his local pub team or try to get trials for Manchester United?

If you have a talent, is it some kind of "selling out" perception that means we shouldn't try to make money from it?

Why is "creating" any different from other skills or talents?

Well, the obvious response to that would be that the criteria are more obvious with other skills or talents. Footballing skills are fairly easily proved or disproved, there is much more of a universal agreement over what makes a good footballer, plumber, whatever. Your toilet either works or it doesn't. Of course there are enormous grey areas - not that I know much about football but I doubt that at the highest levels there can be any real objective or consensus opinion over who is the best footballer. And then there's stuff like furniture design, which is undoubtedly highly creative and can produce objects of great beauty but a chair still has to hold yo ass up.
 
 
schmee
11:39 / 11.04.03
pretty shit

birds and lovely flowers bloom,
the smell of coffee pancakes.
and in a whir of modern fantasy,
a tight, latin combo breaks...

your hair is soft to the touch,
and i got nothing better to do,
your bottom smells of roses and shone sunlight,
so here's another lovely doodle or two...

shush and hear my next lovely song,
about pretty shit and not what's wrong,

adding to the lack of perspective,
cashing in on the prime directive,
triggering opiates exponentially,
in our addicted, impulsive society.

just cashing in on the bullshit,
makin it all fit into your self-conscious.
projecting a vision of decadence,
that'll slam your nose against the fence.

don't think of the potential,
heading credit-bound, endentured,
buying into the vision,
and superstition of the west.

so just buy another lovely song,
about pretty shit and not what's wrong,

adding to the lack of perspective,
cashing in on the prime directive,
triggering opiates exponentially,
in our addicted, impulsive society.
 
 
Sax
12:11 / 11.04.03
So that's a vote for writing for yourself, is it?
 
 
Persephone
12:48 / 11.04.03
See now, I don't agree that it isn't cool to go create stuff in order to make money. Involvement of capital is intrinsic to some art in my view. Some things are expensive to create, so the money to pay for them has to come from somewhere. The idea of some things, too, involves consumption. I'm thinking of William Morris, speaking of chairs. Part of the idea of Arts & Crafts stuff is a response to --and an involvement in-- mass production. Ironically, I'd have to sell a few body parts to get my hands on a Morris chair these days.

Lentil and I may diverge at this point, because I think that his example of a chair is meant to say that we're talking less about art as soon as functionality starts creeping in. I'm working with a similar scale, but at the other end --e.g., the other day, I was at the dentist getting a fluoride treatment. They have this new thing, like a mouthguard but it's made of soft foam and not hard plastic. So the thing squashes very comfortably in your mouth, and it keeps the fluoride away from your tongue so you can't taste it too much. Anyway I was sitting there waiting for the fluoride to work, and I thought. Okay so, this mouthguard isn't art. It's great design, though. But it's *totally* functional, it isn't meant to be anything else. But anyway, my point is that everything else up to that point qualifies as art to me.

Must fly, late for work!
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:59 / 11.04.03
I find it very difficult to get motivated to make art unless it is for an immediate audience. The audience doesn't need to be anymore than a handful of people, but without at least some people to directly respond to something, I don't feel as inclined to make things. That's a big problem in my life right now - I live in relative isolation, and it has become a little harder to collaborate with people or show them anything.

I have no illusions about the fact that I thrive on attention. The more attention, the more excited I get and the more prolific I become. It has always been that way for me. Art, to me, is about communication. If I am not getting immediate feedback, I get stuck very easily. Things start feeling pointless, and that stops me dead in my tracks. I don't think I ever fully understood how much better I work when I'm collaborating until fairly recently, honestly. But it's true.

Lately, most of my creative projects are for extremely limited audiences, and a lot of it is ephemeral improv stuff, but I'm becoming pretty good at developing skills that I will definitely use later. I've got a goal in mind right now, and I'm in the process of learning right now.
 
 
schmee
13:43 / 11.04.03
that was a sarcastic poem.

quite the opposite here's what i think:

art execution is very commercial. meaning the best art execution you will find today is often easily achieved in commerce.

inspiration and subject matter is what i view as subjective and up to the artist themselves to determine at any given point (it changes every unique time an aritst sits down to create).

i am not an artist. because i find the orientation a selfish one. however, i am a commmerical artist, and i can produce art when i find subject and inspiration that are beyond myself.

i work with many artists in the same connundrum, we try to produce art sans our name or appearance for this reason, and to produce something we can be proud of, without seeking reward in the form of audience approval or economic value to measure one's performance.

i also work around many artists who do not try this approach. and the difference between the two is striking.

the deeper i look at art history, the more true this awareness seems to ring as well. bearing in mind of course that art's interp is entirely subjective =)

i have a lot of time for those who would recognize their own individual needs in producing art, and playing with those forces, rather than separating those concerns from their work - but i think over time, the results prove that art which has a lasting, and educational nature is most often produced in settings where this awareness is at play.

as with so many other things, simply understanding the nature of the situation lends incredible insight and ability, where none seemed to previously exist - but this requires understanding our own nature and too many (namely our institutions) find this impossible to grapple with.

you should see the state of art departments at major colleges in the states - filled with people who "get it", but can't explain to their failing students why they "don't". art needs more psychological awareness me thinks (see: dali), hell even parts of color theory are still presented as some kind of science when it's clearly a psychological, possibly anthropological, issue.

i think art for oneself is a wonderful pursuit - like a game, it's how we develop skills and get good at things. however, i fear it being the only pursuit - and indeed i find so much of art produced in the last 20 years especially is exactly that.

hence frequent application of the poem above in artsy forums like barbelith in discussion such as these =)
 
 
grant
13:53 / 11.04.03
I'm moving this thread to the "art" forum, cuz that's where it seems like it goes, moreso than creation.

schmee - great post.
 
 
Sax
14:20 / 11.04.03
Whoa, grant. I'm not sure it does belong in the art forum - I originally wanted to talk about writing, really, but opened it up to art to include more people. I'm not sure the art forum is the right place for it.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:42 / 11.04.03
Mm. It's about the process of creation, which is, I understand it, also the purview of the Creation—it's a place for collaborative efforts and critiques, yeah, but also for issues surrounding creativity and the creative actions. At least, that was the original idea when I started twisting Tom's arm about it.
 
 
rizla mission
15:48 / 11.04.03
I'm interested in this concept of deciding to be a professional creator as "uncool".

To qualify my earlier statement, though it's a bit of a vague distinction I suppose, I was refering to people who undertake the act of creation in order to make $ as being dubious, rather than people who tailor their creations to make $... er... eg, i have no problem with, say, a comics writer who submits a short Batman script to DC rather than a much beloved proposal for a 100 issue epic about the emotional life of a quantum physicist, but someone who starts writing comics cos they're heard it's a good way to make money* I'd be suspicious of.. I was referring more to the creator's inspiration to start creating than to the intention behind a particular creation if you like..

*not that is even remotely, but nevermind.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:03 / 11.04.03
I really don't think being 'professional' and 'independent' are mutually exclusive things.

I think it is a major folly to think that they are. Don't be so childish about it.
 
 
lentil
17:47 / 11.04.03
schmee, glad to hear your poem was sarcastic.

'Part from that I'm a little confused by your post. This "awareness" you talk about - is it an awareness of the striking differences between the two approaches you mention? And if so, what are those two approaches?

we try to produce art sans our name or appearance for this reason, and to produce something we can be proud of, without seeking reward in the form of audience approval or economic value to measure one's performance.

So, (from the preceding paragraph) you are a commercial artist, meaning that you earn your living by utilising your artistic skills, but when you find a subject or inspiration that is "beyond yourself" (again I'm not quite sure what you mean by this) you also make work based on this inspiration. And when you do so you do not attach your name to it and you do not try to show it to people or get any monetary recompense for what you have created?

I feel that i must be missing something here because "artists who do not try this approach" in this context could probably describe 99% of artists. I'm kind of getting the impression that one of the distinctions you're drawing is between a more introspective mode of creation ("i have a lot of time for those who would recognize their own individual needs in producing art") and a mode of creation that addresses the world ("subject and inspiration that are beyond myself."). Fair enough, but I think that to see the "create for yourself" viewpoint as linked hand-in-hand with the introspective mode of creation would be a mistake and a disservice to numerous creators who make relevant work outside of a commercial system.

Definitely agree with you and Persephone about the commerce / execution thing.

But - Dali, what?

Also, I would have preferred to see this stay in the Creation.
 
 
Persephone
19:53 / 11.04.03
I have no illusions about the fact that I thrive on attention. The more attention, the more excited I get and the more prolific I become. It has always been that way for me. Art, to me, is about communication. If I am not getting immediate feedback, I get stuck very easily. Things start feeling pointless, and that stops me dead in my tracks. I don't think I ever fully understood how much better I work when I'm collaborating until fairly recently, honestly. But it's true.

Me, me, me, too, all of what you said. In a way, it's an odd way for me to look at myself because historically I've been so shy and antisocial. But it's a fact that I was an abject failure as a novelist, and not because I didn't get my novel published... oh yeah, I didn't get the fucking thing written, that's how it was. But it would be stupid for me to say that art can't get created in solitude, because obviously there are novels.

(Excuse the italics, I get very sarcastic with myself when I talk about... novel-writing.)

NB: But the idea of creating in solitude vs. for an audience isn't exactly the same idea doing art professionally vs. amateur...ly, I guess. But the two ideas do overlap, of course.

Aauugh, they're back! Am I not going to have a minute to myself this afternoon?

To be continued...
 
 
grant
20:05 / 11.04.03
sending it back, sending it back.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:14 / 11.04.03
I'm glad I could write something that you related to!

I've made art in solitude - I've made a lot of music recordings by myself which I'm proud of, I used to draw constantly, I've written some things that I'm happy with. But collaboration is always way more fun. I've never been the greatest extrovert, but working on a collaborative project brings it out of me, and it makes me more energetic and it boosts my selfesteem dramatically. I really thrive when I work with people on something. I get excited, and I think I'm good at bringing out the best in my collaborators.

A lot of the art that I do is photographic/film, and it's just a necessity to work with other people. It's not easy to put on productions, but it's always a great feeling. Not that long ago, I was terrified of working on a large-scale film production, but now that doesn't seem scary at all. It sounds exhilirating, really.

The audience is key, though. I think the audience is a huge part of art - I want to talk to them, I want to fuck with them, I want to mess with their emotions and ideas, and I want to make them laugh. And I want them to be cool.
 
 
schmee
21:01 / 11.04.03
But - Dali, what?

The Surrealist's ideology was based on Freudian psychology, which systematized the analysis of dreams as revealed in images from the subconscious. Many of Dali's work during the 1930's were intaglio prints that accompanied Surrealist books and periodicals; these prints included "L' Immaculee Conception," and "La Femme Visible."

The works leaned toward provocative, and the "paranoiac-critical method," which Dali' defined as a spontaneous mode of irrational understanding based on interpretative critical association of delirious phenomena. The Oxford Companion to Art refers to it as "an attempt to make systemic use of the organizational force of hallucinatory and obsessive experience with special emphasis on multiple figuration." Even the Surrealist group thought of these works as risque and controversial. Eventually, in 1934 Dali separated from the Surrealist group, because of his conflicting view toward their commitment to Marxist politics and development of rituals, and dogmas. He demanded absolute freedom, and he felt their censorship and political motivations were constricting his ingenuity.

www.dali.com/bio

This "awareness" you talk about - is it an awareness of the striking differences between the two approaches you mention? And if so, what are those two approaches?

perhaps awareness is a strong word, given it's implications of superiority. i just mean to say that i find the greatest work's of art, the ones with the most lasting value, are often executed under the motivation of a thing greater than themself.

by that i mean anything from an audience to a loved one to a political cause to a scientific awareness to the propagation of a principle of simple wisdom.

to use an analgous music example - it's when hip hop or metal or whatever kinda hardcore you want to define uses, "cause i'm a mean mother fucker", that i fail to see much art.

to jumnp to another analogy i used earlier: how one develops skills, and the analogy of sport, or a game, in that process. if you play the game all by yourself, you develop your skills. but you develop no one else's, and your abilities are lost to time forever, the moment you pass. if you play with others, or better yet, design entire games for others to play - then you have real art.

you have achieved one of the most critical and difficult things to do: provided someone else with the motivation you have to get good at said sport, or enjoy it's morals at whatever degree of value. hopefully, well after you're gone, cause the game is that fun.

hey, i know tug boat operators who execute their job in ways that are true art. what makes the next love song better than his form of art?

this thread is about opinion correct? =) because that's all you got from me.

cheers.
 
 
Persephone
21:03 / 11.04.03
...do you want to hear the part about Fantomex, though?

*laughing silently*

Because I've been struggling with my stupid blog. I mean I got it technically, but conceptually it was just ridiculous. It was like a person looking at a hotdog, trying to figure out what the hotdog is for... for fucking crying out loud, it's a hotdog. But then it struck me: it was just wrong. It was just wrong in the sense of something being wrong in a painting, if that makes sense. It was out of context! Yes, that's it. I wrote this all in a farewell Blogger post, which was eaten by Blogger & what could be more brilliant than that?? (Not the part about the hotdog, I just thought of that.) See I got my website as a birthday present & at first all I did with it was to park images to post on Barbelith. Then Jesus, moriarty linked to me in his blog & I had to do something. So then I thought it would be my personal art site and blog. But you know, my "personal" art is *totally* fed by this board. So QG is sort of organically developing in that direction, but the blog hasn't been. The blog is straight off the drawing board, but the rest of the site is... like a living thing. I'm just saying, I'm seeing in Queer Granny that art that I do naturally involves other people.

(The part about Fantomex is, you know how Fantomex's ship is his mutation? I was thinking that Queer Granny is my mutation. Or my ship.)

What it's like is, you are the tool that you use to make your art. So one of the things you want to figure out is how this tool works, how you work. And I was wrong about how I work for sooo long...
 
 
Olulabelle
21:21 / 12.04.03
This is all extremely interesting and I am enjoying following this debate, so thank you.

I think it’s very liberating to create work (be it writing or painting or composing or whatever) purely for yourself, I can’t imagine any person with some sort of musical ability that hasn’t picked up their instrument and just played for the sake of playing. The fact that only the musician was there to hear it, and the tune may be forgotten straight away does not stop it from being just as valuable a piece as the musician who picks up his/her instrument, plays a tune, writes down the music and then sells records as (in order not to start a sub-debate about particular styles of music) insert name of favourite band here:_____________________________

This also directly relates to the concepts of Public Art, (artworks which are installed at a site exposed to the public) and to a certain extent, Net Art. If, as a Public Artist, you occasionally make work solely for the purposes of satisfying your own creative urges and if no-one sees it and it isn't created in a public space, that would surely jeopardise your *title* of Public Artist, or in effect make you a Non-Public Artist. The same can be said for Net Art. If I make a piece of work, and upload it to my site, but tell no-one and it is not viewed, it goes against the definition of Net Art; that which is created by working without marginalization and achieving substantial audience, communication, dialogue and fun. Yet I would still say I was a Net Artist.

How you choose to define the work created is restricted to the language or the words you have available, and the trouble with words is that you don’t know who’s mouth they’ve been in before you get them. In other words(!) I don’t think you can define any piece of Art by it’s eventual audience. As long as the piece is created with the intention of communicating something, the way that it communicates it or the fact that it may never actually do so at all is by and large irrelevant to the fact that it has been created in the first place. It’s the act of creation that is the ‘Art’ part.

I also find the view that a piece of work can be considered more or less creatively valuable depending on it’s initial reason for genesis problematic. If you like it’s the ‘Art is Holy’ concept. For example, If I paint my sister a picture which someone then subsequently offers to buy, and I say, ‘Sell it, we could do with the cash and I’ll paint you another,’ is the second picture less ‘artistically holy’ than the first?

So, yes, I also think it’s about intention. As Rizla said, but someone who starts writing comics cos they're heard it's a good way to make money, I'd be suspicious of.
 
 
adject
18:33 / 13.04.03
Ha. If anybody I knew of thought they could make good money from comics I'd be suspect of their sanity. I think in the large vast of the comic book sea (at least in the Western world), making money from comics is rare... just like in most art forms I think.

I do a lot of things. I write, mostly. I paint sometimes. I dabble in music obsession. All of it in solitude. Yet I don't feel like I create for myself. I mean, I do because I AM myself, but it's ultimately a communication to me. From across the span that makes it difficult for me to communicate in the more traditional methods (i.e., talking).

That being said, when the web was small, anybody was guaranteed some kind of audience. So, for me, I became used to having that kind of sounding board. After a while it became difficult to produce and not expecting somebody to see it.

Sometimes I create for specific people.

Sometimes I create because I need something to do.

All the time I create because I do not know what else I am here for.

But money never really comes into the equation. I do wonder about why the word professional carries the implication that:

a) one is making money from their work
b) it is of higher quality than something from an amateur or a hobbyist

But I guess that's just embedded in the idea that if something costs money, it must have value. Demand is even worse... if LOTS of PEOPLE want it then it must have even MORE value. How deep does the ingraining of comparison and social expectation go in daily life? How can an all-inclusive paradigm possibly be created within the constraints of linear time?

So. Now that people are wondering if my sanity is suspect, hi! I'm new to the board.
 
 
Sax
06:08 / 18.04.03
For those of you who make comics, write fiction, record music, write poetry, create collages or paintings or whatever, if you do it in splendid isolation (and few people would deny that the act of creation is something that tends to be done alone. Unless you're making a baby, of course) do you then disseminate it to an audience or keep it in a drawer in your bedroom?

Is art in fact art if no-one sees it but the creator? Is there a point to writing a story that no-one will read or playing a song that no-one will hear?

Isn't it the duty of the artist to get the biggest possible audience for hir work?

Is art without an audience not, in fact, masturbation of the worst kind - initially satisfying but ultimately empty and pointless?
 
 
Persephone
12:15 / 18.04.03
Not to be saucy, but what's behind the idea that masturbation is empty and pointless? Seriously if you consider that not everyone is going to agree with that assumption, then that puts you a good way towards answering your overlying questions.
 
  
Add Your Reply