5 Comments

I found this piece really interesting especially the idea of art as voice versus art as product. And the view of the AND - how an artist can still keep their voice and have their product being worth shared and distributed. His view (and perhaps privilege) didn't allow him to see the joy he brought others, and how a little trinket could be meaningful to someone. Thoughtful piece... and inspiring as I work to have my own art as voice and product. Thanks for sharing!

Expand full comment

You give me much to think about. As a lifelong Watterson fan (I am not aware of a time when I was not well-acquainted with his work) I tend to side with him in his fight against commercialization of his artistic legacy. However, you raise some good points about motivation, selfishness, and the duty an artist has to the world around them.

Is there an ethical line, though? Is an artist required to submit to the demands of the market? Is it true that "he who pays the piper calls the tune", and is there any limit to what "tune" can be called? If the artist legitimately feels that a certain application of their artwork would pollute their message, can they put a stop to that use? And who gets to decide the meaning of "legitimate" in that instance?

It is ironic that several of the "elitist" artists have made heaps and heaps of money off their art (Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons come first to mind), while other "popular" artists (Thomas Kinkade) have gone the commercialist route and suffered no dilution of their underlying artistic message.

As an example of the exact opposite of what has happened to Calvin and Hobbes, you really ought to watch this hour-long analysis of Garfield. It has some pretty disturbing imagery so be careful if the kids are in the room. https://youtu.be/O2C5R3FOWdE

Expand full comment