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!
Thank you so much Faith! Yes, I believe this is my most controversial/edgy piece because we often hear the message in popular media that there is something less than, something seedy, something bad about "selling out," yet how can an artist/writer/musician survive and thrive without money? And how can the idea of the "starving artist" as a noble figure continue when most anyone under a capitalist system can become a seller and find customers for their products even when those products are merely the results of thoughts and ideas? Creatives/creators are no longer at the mercy of patrons like a king or noble or wealthy person to sponsor and support them, so why the negativity surrounding a wish to reach the mass market directly? Money can be used for good, to fund universities and hospitals, parks and beaches, etc., so why the need to malign wealth or wealth-seeking, which I think is what Watterson did? I believe that this is an area that deserves more scrutiny.
I agree. Your reply made me think of VanGogh, how he died poor and yet millions are profiting now 100 years later off his work. Wouldn't it have been good for him to get the proceeds off a Tshirt or mug?
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
Thanks for your comment! I'm so glad it was thought-provoking. 🤗
I don't argue that anyone should be forced to do anything, but I question the argument that the author/artist/creator has control over the message that the audience chooses to receive.
Once the work is out, in many ways it belongs to the audience and the author cannot rein in what or how the audience views or interprets the work, and really the author shouldn't want to. It's not a dictatorship. Art is a free expression of thoughts and feelings, of interpretations and opinions. Why would an author tell their audience that they are enjoying their work "wrong" or in the "wrong way" or "interpreting it wrong"?
Ultimately I think this is all about perspective. To me there are, on balance, more benefits—if you ever get the opportunity to reach the mass market—to allow any piece of work that brings people joy to spread as widely as possible. I see it as a gift to humanity.
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!
Thank you so much Faith! Yes, I believe this is my most controversial/edgy piece because we often hear the message in popular media that there is something less than, something seedy, something bad about "selling out," yet how can an artist/writer/musician survive and thrive without money? And how can the idea of the "starving artist" as a noble figure continue when most anyone under a capitalist system can become a seller and find customers for their products even when those products are merely the results of thoughts and ideas? Creatives/creators are no longer at the mercy of patrons like a king or noble or wealthy person to sponsor and support them, so why the negativity surrounding a wish to reach the mass market directly? Money can be used for good, to fund universities and hospitals, parks and beaches, etc., so why the need to malign wealth or wealth-seeking, which I think is what Watterson did? I believe that this is an area that deserves more scrutiny.
I agree. Your reply made me think of VanGogh, how he died poor and yet millions are profiting now 100 years later off his work. Wouldn't it have been good for him to get the proceeds off a Tshirt or mug?
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
Thanks for your comment! I'm so glad it was thought-provoking. 🤗
I don't argue that anyone should be forced to do anything, but I question the argument that the author/artist/creator has control over the message that the audience chooses to receive.
Once the work is out, in many ways it belongs to the audience and the author cannot rein in what or how the audience views or interprets the work, and really the author shouldn't want to. It's not a dictatorship. Art is a free expression of thoughts and feelings, of interpretations and opinions. Why would an author tell their audience that they are enjoying their work "wrong" or in the "wrong way" or "interpreting it wrong"?
Ultimately I think this is all about perspective. To me there are, on balance, more benefits—if you ever get the opportunity to reach the mass market—to allow any piece of work that brings people joy to spread as widely as possible. I see it as a gift to humanity.