fchan

I'm getting so tired of people bitching about furry artists(and artists in general) having bad attitudes. No one is forcing you to read the journals, posts, comments or anything relating to the art. People seek out this knowledge and then when they find some random thing they don't like about the artist suddenly the "art is ruined!" so why seek out that info in the first place? Chances are every artist is going to have something wrong with them...whether it be the raving insane fanbase or some gigantic ego.

Why can't people just simply enjoy the art anymore? Why do they feel the need to get themselves entrenched into an artists life and learn everything about them until it ruins the enjoyment of art? Worse yet...you have people who constantly have to repeat these things to everyone else in an attempt to get everyone to hate the artist/art.

Heck, you don't even need furries for the drama.  Just add Internet and you're good.

>Just download the art and shut up

NO U

It is natural for people to want to connect with artists as they become more attached to the art. This happens in writing, music, animation, etc. As you become a fanboy, you become at least partially a fan of the person and the mind behind the work as of the work itself. And, on the artist's side, as your art becomes more and more popular you stop being a craftsman and become a celebrity.

A person who likes the art so much that they try to become a fanboy, but instead find themselves loving the art and hating the artist, naturally feels conflicted. Especially if they realize that, in spreading and complimenting the artists work, they were helping support a narcisistic shithead.

This conflict leads them to bitch and complain, and to try to make the artist's narcisistic shitheadery common knowledge so that no one else makes their mistake. But to the casual viewers (who never would have felt the need to try becoming fanboys in the firstplace) they just come off as annoying.


That's life. If any of this bothers you, well...
Just download the art and shut up.

tl;dr: Artist drama usually comes from disillusioned fanboys who think they deserve more attention than they get from those they idolize.

>>6  You hit the nail right on the head!!

Here I am at AC at my Dealer table selling prints.  It's busy and people are lined up waiting to buy.  This fan boy walks up wanting to tell me his life story.  I am polite and listen for a bit while others in line are getting pissed.  I kindly ask this person if he can come back later when the room is less busy.  He gets pissed and leaves in a huff and later writes in his journal what an ass I am for only wanting to make sales.  So on one hand I am pissing off people that are waiting to buy prints and on the other I am pissing off people that want to stand there and talk.

My prints are among the cheapest in the dealer room.  My minimum bids on my art show pieces are usually under $5.  The prices can get pretty high so now I read on some journals and other chan sites that I am an overpriced egomaniac.  I mean what did I do to deserve that?

I am sorry folks but in most cases it's not the artists who are the asshats here.  It's people who have nothing to contribute to this fandom trying to build themselves up by trying to tear down those who are getting the attention.

Thats where i was getting at with the "Sticks and Stones" Thread

Personally I dislike the term artist being used in this context. This "fandom" places "artists" on a pedestal, when in reality they are pretty much just porn-mongers.

So yeah, I guess I agree with the OP. For a lot of people the art is the only attraction, but again it's the vocal minority making everything to do with furries seem all fucked up. For those people who decide they wish to "get involved" and make some friends in the fandom, all this celebrity culture crap can't be a good thing.

Sure it took skill to draw that tentacale monster raping Gadget anally, but at the end of the day it's still a entacale monster raping Gadget anally.

(I really don't know where I was going with this post, just putting out some thoughts.)

>>13

"Personally I dislike the term artist being used in this context. This "fandom" places "artists" on a pedestal, when in reality they are pretty much just porn-mongers.
(I really don't know where I was going with this post, just putting out some thoughts.)"

Simple, you are jealous of the artists getting all the attention so you try to pull them down by saying they are "porn-mongers". Art is art regardless of the subject matter.

"Sure it took skill to draw that tentacale monster raping Gadget anally, but at the end of the day it's still a entacale monster raping Gadget anally."

There's a lame quote if I ever heard one:
Sure it took skill to paint the Mona Lisa but at the end of the day it's still just a woman's face.

In other words, in both cases the artist was successful in communicating their ideas.  How does this NOT make it art?

YOU, my friend, are the classic example of 'asshat'.

it's both.

>>16

Porn is folk art (i.e, something created for a reason other than "for ART(trumpets/spotlights/angel harps)!!!" ).

Folk art still counts as art.

Semantics asside, though, I'm interested indicsussing this.

One artist saw an image in his head of St. Michael driving Satan from paradise. Wanting to see it represented visually, and wanting to communicate that image to others, he painted it. He may have also wanted to kiss ass within his church and earn some fame as an artist but we give him the benefit of the doubt on intent.

Another artist saw an image in his head of his character tieing down and raping his best friend's character. Wanting to see it represented visually, and wanting to communicate that image to others, he drew, scanned and colored it. He may have also wanted to increase his standing within the fandom and improve his pageviews with fresh content, but we give him the benefit of the doubt on intent.

Other than the subject matter, the medium, and a few hundred years, what's the fundamental difference between these two pieces of art?

>>19
One is used to convey a religious theme, and the other is used as wanking material?

I'm not saying porn is bad and that people who draw porn aren't artists. It does take skill to draw it. It's just not used to convey anything symbolically. It's the same thing with fan art. It may be good and there may be artistic skill and merit behind it, but its sole purpose is to please people who enjoy looking at fan art.

>>22  I totally Agree.  Never heard that art had to be symbolic to be art.  Just more people pulling definitions out of their butts to justify their case.

"Whe can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless."

~Oscar Wilde



Not everyone will agree with this but that's how I see it. Porn is useful (having a purpose both in intent and in practice- recreational arousal). Therefor, it can't be art.
Even when its artistic merrits are just as great as those of "real" (i.e, useless) art.

>>26

No, art which is useful only as art is still useless, and is still art (they are useful as art, and people appreciate them who appreciate art for arts sake; they are 'useless' in the sense that this is circular reasoning and they have no use beyond it).

>>27

What you've just said makes no sense. No art is art "just because it's art". They're all tools to stimulate and arouse various parts of our being.

"art which is useful only as art is still useless"

That is equivalent to saying "a hammer which is useful only as a hammer is still useless". You can't define art using the word art. I think I get where you were initially going with this, but it breaks down under scrutiny. This is pretty simple 1--->2 reasoning. If art was "useless" it wouldn't exist except for on accident. If people created it because they wanted to experience whatever it is that is contained within, then it has a use. If you're looking for the nail and wood that this "hammer" is "hammering" on, it's us. Even by your bizarre circular reasoning, porn would still be art, because it's doing the same things, which you have deemed useless, as the other things that you call art: arousing parts of our being and nothing else.


I'm sure you'll just assume that I don't get what you're talking about.

>>29
No, I get what you are saying. Let me better word my disagreement.

Wilde (who was a smartass and a faggot) claimed that art has no use, it is there simply for us to admire it.

You claim that art's capacity to be admired is a use unto itself. Good point.

To get more technical, it would be more accurate to say that art has no use OTHER than to be appreciated.
I think that this was implied from the quote, but whatever.

Art is only art if it has no use except to be admired intensely. This is one definition of art.

Porn can be admired intensely, but it is also designed to make fapping more enjoyable. Hence, not art.

You've seen this from the start, which is why you've already started to lay the foundation for claiming that the act of admiring art is "mental arousal" and that this is the same as physical, fleshy arousal.
Please don't. It isn't.

>>32

Well, that makes more sense, but the distinction feels arbitrary. That doesn't matter though, as you said you knew some people wouldn't agree with your assessment, and as long as I get your internal assessment of matters logically consistent in my head, I'm good.

>>31

One other thing I can't let go.

"You've seen this from the start, which is why you've already started to lay the foundation for claiming that the act of admiring art is "mental arousal" and that this is the same as physical, fleshy arousal.
Please don't. It isn't."

I suppose that since people dance to music then music must not be art eh? Nice attempt to short me out. Didn't work.

Basically, I wasn't saying that physical arousal and mental arousal were the exact same thing, but they were parts of our being (ie, it's my penis/frontal lobe, so it's part of me) and art was anything in the realm of frivolous entertainment of ourselves. When you state that porn produces two things, one being mental and the other being physical, you state it as though they are two unrelated outcomes, when in reality they compliment each other and go towards the same damn thing- entertainment. That's what I initially thought you were getting at with art having no use beyond "being art": being entertainment and nothing else. I therefore started saying that entertainment was it's use and also didn't see how porn was different from this criterion. I hadn't realized that you had made the distinction between the two and so, no, I didn't see what you meant from the beginning and try to weasel words in in an underhanded attempt at persuasion, as you seem to suggest.

There, next time I'll take the time to think about my response instead of posting every half-assed attempt to come to mind.