thereās a reason corporate-made art is clean, sanitized, and designed to make you feel good, and indie, pulp or hobby art is often weird, offputting, scary, challenging, derivative, extremely specific and hard to relate to
the first is trying to get you in their pocket, the latter is trying to say something that is, if not honest, then at least interesting, and innately representative of how weird, offputting, scary, challenging, derivative, extremely specific and hard to relate to people are.
thereās no financial incentive to make art for the sake of making art because thatās art thatās made to exclude you, unless its specificity and your curiosity is relevant to you.
but there sure is huge financial incentive to brainwash you into thinking a group of marketing execs and established billionaire corporations/publishers that never make you feel bad or explore a scary thought about anything ever while they actively brutalize attempts for unionization of the artists who make their product and exploit them until thereās no blood in them left to give
is making representative art the right way ā all to get richer off of your moral dilemma and hysteria
the idea that art should be accessible and clean for everyone and used as an example of what to think about the world isnāt art, itās propaganda and a profit motive. expecting all art to be like this doesnāt make you progressive, it makes you a conservative-capitalist conspirator that thinks being anti-intellectual is a virtue and curiosity and uncomfortable introspection is a sin
Well, anon, you had me in the first half, thatās for sure. I agree with you about blocking and ignoring people you donāt like.
But hereās where you get it wrong.
but at the same time, depicting certain topics in fiction just for the sake of depicting them without saying anything about the subject matter or the very real suffering victims experience, using the abuse for nothing more than shipping fodder, is vile, and i think if you need that explained to you, you donāt have the critical thinking skills to be interacting with the internetā
Letās say for the sake of argument that youāre right (I disagree, but for the sake of argument), ādepicting something without saying something about it, and using it just for shipping fodder is vile.ā
Letās imagine for a second thatās true.
How do you know, for sure, what works are attempting to say something artistically about abuse and suffering and which are ājust shipping fodderā?
You think you āknow it when you see it?ā (This is the same rule that is from obscenity laws that allow any pornography to be criminalized if it doesnāt make an artistic statement.)
How can you say, for sure, that something that you think is vile and glorifies abuse, isnāt written by a victim of that abuse trying to portray the suffering that they went through? Do you demand them to disclose their trauma to you?
How do you say for sure what is art about suffering or harm or mental illness, and what is something ājust made to get off to.ā
More to the point, who do YOU trust to decide between the two?Ā
Who do you trust to go through every work about dark topics and decide which ones are art and which ones are just smut?
Is there anyone you actually trust to put in authority to do that?
How would you arrange that? How would you make sure that this theoretical governing body stayed pure through the years and wasnāt corrupted into an authoritarian body censoring all uncomfortable depictions of suffering, abuse and mental illness?
You can not.
You just canāt.
No one can.
All art is art, anon. All art has something to say. You can’t assign a judge to decide what art is saying something and what isn’t.
Please indulge me, in between commissions I would like to draw some cute clowns. This is the first one inspired myĀ āDiamonds Are a Girlās Best Friendā
