fchan

discussion

Artists deleting their galleries

Pages:1 41 81 121
1Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 00:41

Does anyone else get tired of having to spend the majority of their day checking every single artist's gallery just to make sure to download stuff IMMEDIATELY in case of some random bout of whateverthefuck resulting in a gallery wipe? I mean, I know it's their art and I respect that but is it too much to ask to get a little warning? Is it too much to ask that as a fan(and a client when possible) to know they plan to delete all the art so I can back it up?

So many artists these days randomly wipe their gallery without warning which means that i'm in the position to either just let the art disappear or spend 3-4 hours of my day browsing hundreds of websites and online galleries trying to ensure i've got the latest and greatest. The latest artist to do this is Wetherby and I honestly don't know why the art was deleted.

I of course didn't have a recent backup of the gallery because I assumed it would be there tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, 3 months later i'm ready to back it up and OOPS. All gone. Anyway, if anyone would like to share an archive i'd much appreciate it. Discuss away. Do the fans have a right to know? Do clients(who pay hundreds in commissions) have a right to know? Do the artists have any obligation to the fanbase?

2Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 02:35

"I'm going to close down all my online galleries for reasons that are absolutely nobody else's business, and I'm scheduling it for next Thursday at 3:17 PM EST, if that doesn't cause too many people too much hardship.  Is that all right with the rest of the world?  Because if it isn't, I can put my life on hold until, say, the following Sunday at 10:00 AM."

3Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 02:38

>>1
>> Do the fans have a right to know? Do clients(who pay hundreds in commissions) have a right to know? Do the artists have any obligation to the fanbase?

The answer to all those is a resounding "no".  Maybe the answer should be 'yes' and it might be nice if it was, but it's not. 

The reality is that any person's access to any other person's art is a privilege, not a right, unless that right has been explicitly negotiated, put in writing/electronic contract (where applicable)  and paid for or surrendered by the artist.  

In the real world, that actually happens a significant amount, but in the furry world, it's a very rare thing, and thus all furry fans are entitled to is their right to bitch, moan and feel bad (plus a bit of bad-mouthing/slander/rumormongering on the side). 

Of course the reason for this is simple cause and effect - Artists are the cause, fans are the effect.  Art causes fans, but fans don't cause art (or artists); or to put it another way, any artist can create with impunity whether or not there's any fans to see/appreciate it, but without the artists, there's no art, and thus nothing for the fans to be fans of. 

The only really complications arise in the intricacies of the relationship between some artists and their fans, as some artists appreciate/respect/desire fans more so than others, so some artist's will value their fans at some level, while others couldn't really care less for their fans. 

4Report
Patch at 27 Jun 2008: 03:14

>>1 Fans do not technically have a "right" to know if a gallery is about to get wiped. The typical fan has entered into no official agreement with the artist, and therefore cannot gain "rights" from an adhoc relationship.

Artists do not technically have "obligations" toward their fans; promises don't hold up in court, etc. The artist did not expressly ask for a given person to become their 'fan' in any strict terms. It just happened; the artist went on a social networking site, or pornsite, or both, and perhaps hoped someone would like their work and show it...

Terms are generally never stipulated by fans or artists aheadof time, and that's why they bitch when someone abandons someone else. (Note that fanbases can abandon artists just as much as vis-versa.)

All that there is is just a bunch of suppositions about what the right thing to do is, and what's nice or mean, and whether those mean and nice things are being done onpurpose or not.

The reason artists leave and delete all their crap really abruptly without warning is generally for one of two reasons a) they want their fans to be like, "Hey me luvs ur arts plaz come bkac?"
or the other reason b) they feel genuinley hurt by something that happened to them (not always/usually the general fanbase's fault) and they don't consider the fans that really care about them or respect them. Sometimes the artist generalize that they're _all_ out to get her/hir/him, and that they've gotta take down all the art ASAP so that the mean, greedy fans don't horde it before there's a chance to keep that from happening.

>>3
Your logic about fans and them not creating artists is in essence true, but it's a little murky. I propose (an)/(a better) analogy: artists are sex, and fans are food. Artists can exist and 'create' all they want, and yes in a vaccuum they make art. But when artists conceive, they sometimes want a appreciation with regard to the effort they go to. The fans provide nutrients to the artist, and, (provided they're not poisonous or bad-tasting) will sustain the artist and help them get bigger/stronger/etc.
And don't forget that at least a third of all furries are artists in their own right... various artists, especially emerging ones, compete with eachother for fans' time, energy, praise-whoridge, and critiques. To quote every elementary schoolteacher in the country: it's not a foodchain, it's a food_web_. But I'm not the only vorewhore who might've told you that using those terms.

Other than that I'm not arguing with you, and I sometimes think it's really sad when fans devour their heroes and also when heroes do mean shit to their fans. For that reason furries still sometimes need to say the phrase "We're only human."

5Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 03:35

Its like a begining artist sharing his/her ideas with artist that had been doing it for years hoping to get some ideas, but instead you get you head bitten off.

Oh... I know how that feels

6Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 03:36

**and advice

7Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 03:56

OP again.

Let me clarify some of what I said. I deeply appreciate the artists and their sharing of art. I even understand why some of them might do what they do(when deleting art) but is it too much to ask for some common courteousy? It takes all of 30 seconds to make a post notifying people why they wish to leave the fandom, delete art or whatever else. This notification can be done before OR after the art is wiped from the gallery.

It becomes especially disrespectful to fans and clients when an artist has collected THOUSANDS of dollars from the fanbase for their work. At that point it's just bad business etiquite to disappear without warning(especially when some commissions haven't been completed and thus people's money = gone)

While I don't believe an artist is obligated to notify the fanbase...it's just common courteousy to do so. Furthermore, when fans start to feel attacked by their heroes they will start ignoring the wishes of ALL artists in a similar fashion that people now pirate all music because they hate the RIAA. I believe there is a social obligation attached to being an artist who takes part in the communities online. An artist should be able to leave when they please but it's not too much to ask to get a reason why even if all the details aren't shared. Artists who treat fans like shit are responsible for making the fans jaded and disrespectful toward other artists.

"I'm leaving/deleting my art because of personal reasons/art theft/got a new job/dont like my old art/etc etc" sure is hard to say!

8Report
Draconis Khaan at 27 Jun 2008: 04:11

>>7
Therein lies the circle. You say that artists acting discourteous towards fans causes fans to disrespect artists, but many times the discourtesy is caused by disrespect the artist received from the fans. It's a vicious cycle.

I do, however, think that artists that have unfinished commissions need to either finish them or return the money. To accept money for a service you then fail to provide is illegal in most places.

9Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 04:37

some times what a fan for artist writes can be taken way out of context.

Somthing that seems quite harmless can come across quite nasty and threatening.

:( <thats what those are for

10Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 04:55

>>8
And therein lies another problem, many artists will refuse to refund your money(half payment) if they provided some really rough sketches. Those sketches are nowhere near a finished product and aren't even "half" of a finished product. I'm not talking cleanish sketches either, i'm talking ROUGH sketches that take maybe 1-2 hours maximum for the entire lot.

I paid $100 as a half payment once and I won't name the artist but they refused to refund the money or finish the commission. What they provided was nowhere near a final product as they still had to clean it up, ink it, detail it AND cg it. In other words they had completed 1/5th of the job and took half the payment.

But the thing is...even refunding a portion of my payment wouldn't have been satisfactory. I entered into a deal with them to produce a fully finished piece of art and I only gave a down payment with the belief i'd receive that and nothing less. Lucky for me I was able to do a chargeback and get my money back.

11Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 05:47

What I heard in the OP is that the stuff you were interested in not just viewing but downloading had disappeared. I don't want to sound mean but this feels like a classic BAWWWW. That's the transient nature of content on the internet. Easy come, easy go.

If you're on good terms with the artist, ask politely in an email.

12Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 11:02

>>1

While I don't think the artists "owe" anything tangible to fans (not talking about commissions - whole different beast), I think it would be nice if they realized that without a certain level of loyalty (too strong a word really) they wouldn't get the attention and notice they do otherwise.  Respect is a two-way street and it's up to the artist how they want to handle that. The problem is too many end up as prima donnas who think that without them furry would fall apart.

In any case though, I do think it's annoying as hell when an artist hits the Nuke button.  I'm sure there are valid reasons at least _some_ of the time, but it drives me crazy, especially when it's over some spat they had with an idiot online. Not saying it's right or wrong, just irritating.

13Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 11:11

>>12
"I'm sure there are valid reasons at least _some_ of the time, but it drives me crazy, especially when it's over some spat they had with an idiot online."

It's a little like banning fireworks because some dumb kid decides holding a 1/4 stick of dynamite in their palm is the smart thing to do. Punishing the hundreds and thousands of polite fans for the actions of a few bad apples is illogical at best.

14Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 14:31

>>13

That's a really, really stupid analogy. Nanny state != getting sick of fans.

I still don't get why this argument even exists. Are you fans _really_ that self-absorbed and full of feelings of entitlement? Artists owe you nothing. Not art, not any more respect than you earn, and certainly not a detailed explanation for everything they do that might make people uncomfortable. In fact, your entitlement complex is one of the biggest reasons artists quit the fandom so readily.

15Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 16:31

>>11
How do you ask politely in an email?

I tried that, but it probably came across annoying.

16Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 16:36

>>14 I dont think "Nanny state" is what he meant.

And wether or not were just self absorbed, i dont even know anymore.  :(

I meerly come here just to kill bordom.

17Report
at 27 Jun 2008: 23:08

>>15 What can I say? If your effort to ask politely is annoying, you may simply lack skill at tact. I can't help you from here with that.

18Report
at 28 Jun 2008: 13:41

>>14
I wasn't comparing nanny state to this and I simply meant to show that punishing the majority for the mistakes of the minority is illogical.

Furthermore, artist DO owe us because we don't HAVE to be their fans. There are many artists out there who because of online popularity were able to procur jobs and begin careers in an over saturated industry. DoDeDo for instance left the fandom in a very immature way and then tried to come back only to be met with hostility. He/she got a job, that's GREAT but without us fans DoDeDo wouldn't have been able to make all that commission money in the meantime thus making that job all the more likely to obtain.

In the end an artist can act however they want just like you can decide to be an asshole to every person you walk by on the street. It doesn't change the fact that many artists are unnecessarily rude and don't appreciate what the fans do for them. Most artists I speak to think of the fans as the following;
-Job/money opportunities
-Confidence boosters
-Helpful critics
-Sources of inspiration(when ideas and stories are shared)

So to say they owe the fans nothing is bullshit. If they use the fans in any way which benefits them positively then they DO owe us a 10 second explanation as to why they left/are leaving.

19Report
at 28 Jun 2008: 15:47

>>18

Jesus H. Christ, did it ever occur to you that most artists quit, not to "punish the fans", but because they're sick of the stress the fans give them? "B-b-but why remove their gallery..." because new fans will keep finding it and seeking them out to demand they make more art, and because other people will be able to link them to their art, and thusly to a fandom they don't want to be associated with any more.

And no, again, artists owe you NOTHING. If they had a contract with their fans, or had other wise ASKED FOR THEM, then yes. But fans are just random people heaping praise and comments on artists. If a stranger does you a good turn without your requesting it, it's certainly nice to return it, but by no means is a return favor owed.

You--and others like you--have a massive entitlement complex, and really, really need to get over yourselves.

20Report
at 28 Jun 2008: 16:41

>>18

Gotta agree with the last post (>>19).  I rather think if an artist is deleting his site for whatever reasons, the assumption would be that the fans are probably the last thing on his list of concerns.  There could be money troubles, family problems, personal issues, a general change of heart or interest in self-promotion, a general cahge of heart about his own work...  Whatever's caused him to remove his site is more than likely a personal matter, and there's no way to know how profound it really is.  Under such circumstances, naturally the strangers who view his work are the last thing that he's going to be concerned with.

There's even the possibility that a site could have been removed entirely by accident.  That may sound odd, but I did exactly that several years ago, accidently deleting my own site while trying to transfer files, and then not wanting to go through all of the trouble of reconstructing it from scratch.  (I didn't have the foresight to make copies of the HTML.)

What's disturbing about your post is the way you take such occurences so personally, as though they were directed at you, or that they somehow majorly affect -your- life.  An artist's site vanishes and your reaction isn't "Hey, is there something wrong?", but "Hey!  What about me?"...

A little more empathy would be in order.

21Report
at 28 Jun 2008: 16:50

"Does anyone else get tired of having to spend the majority of their day checking every single artist's gallery just to make sure to download stuff IMMEDIATELY in case of some random bout of whateverthefuck resulting in a gallery wipe?"

Holy crap!  Is that the whole and means of your entire day!?

"I mean, I know it's their art and I respect that but is it too much to ask to get a little warning? Is it too much to ask that as a fan(and a client when possible) to know they plan to delete all the art so I can back it up?"

How do you know if the artist himself is even aware?  The site might be down without his being aware, or wiped by a hacker.  Try giving him more than fifteen minutes to make a public post -- like maybe a couple of days.  (He could be away at a con.)

"So many artists these days randomly wipe their gallery without warning which means that i'm in the position to either just let the art disappear or spend 3-4 hours of my day browsing hundreds of websites and online galleries trying to ensure i've got the latest and greatest. The latest artist to do this is Wetherby and I honestly don't know why the art was deleted."

Why do you NEED to know!?  It's none of your business why, if he doesn't want to tell anyone.  Just because you're obsessed with collecting every salacious image that flies across the screen, doesn't mean that he's in any way obligated to sate your appetite, or to explain himself when he doesn't.

"I of course didn't have a recent backup of the gallery because I assumed it would be there tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, 3 months later i'm ready to back it up and OOPS. All gone."

You snooze, you lose.  That's life.

"Anyway, if anyone would like to share an archive i'd much appreciate it. Discuss away. Do the fans have a right to know? Do clients(who pay hundreds in commissions) have a right to know? Do the artists have any obligation to the fanbase?"

The fans do not have any right whatsoever to expect anything.

The clients DO, -if- they have an outstanding commission.

The artists could certainly as a courtesy offer an explanation, but they have no obligation to do so.  And why should fans expect any obligations from the artists when they don't offer any in return?

22Report
at 28 Jun 2008: 17:02

"Let me clarify some of what I said. I deeply appreciate the artists and their sharing of art. I even understand why some of them might do what they do(when deleting art) but is it too much to ask for some common courteousy? It takes all of 30 seconds to make a post notifying people why they wish to leave the fandom, delete art or whatever else. This notification can be done before OR after the art is wiped from the gallery."

If they care to.  And it would, as you say, be a courtesy.  It is not, however, an obligation, and it shouldn't be expected as such.

"It becomes especially disrespectful to fans and clients when an artist has collected THOUSANDS of dollars from the fanbase for their work. At that point it's just bad business etiquite to disappear without warning(especially when some commissions haven't been completed and thus people's money = gone)"

Very, very few furry artists are making anywhere near that much money on commissions.  Very damn few.  Most furry artists simply post and get no rewards at all, let alone financial.  Quite a few have their works pirated and posted to chan boards over their protestations.

And when you get into talking about commissions at all, you're talking a completely different ballgame.  Are you concerned because someone you had commissioned had suddenly vanished?  That's a completely different matter altogether, and THERE you may have some legitimate beef.

"While I don't believe an artist is obligated to notify the fanbase...it's just common courteousy to do so."

Then WHY are you even bringing it up!?  You're contradicting yourself in saying that you don't believe that he has an obligation to inform you, while in the same breath you're bitching BECAUSE he hasn't informed you!!

"Furthermore, when fans start to feel attacked by their heroes..."

Hold on!  How did this suddenly turn into an attack!?  The act of deleting his site and disappearing is an attack on the fans!?!?!?

"...they will start ignoring the wishes of ALL artists in a similar fashion that people now pirate all music because they hate the RIAA."

Here's a flash.

THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT!!! THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT ALL ALONG!!!

"I believe there is a social obligation attached to being an artist who takes part in the communities online. An artist should be able to leave when they please but it's not too much to ask to get a reason why even if all the details aren't shared. Artists who treat fans like shit are responsible for making the fans jaded and disrespectful toward other artists."

I'm sorry, but if any fan feels that anybody not personally or contracturally associated with them is required to offer apologies or reasons for the choices he or she make in their lives, then that fan seriously needs to get over themselves.
There is no reason for anybody to get offended because an artist ceases to produce or explain their reasons.  That's just silly.

23Report
at 28 Jun 2008: 17:15

"Furthermore, artist DO owe us because we don't HAVE to be their fans."

I'm sorry, but being their fan is YOUR choice.  Nobody asked or hired you to do that.  A fan is a thing to be appreciated, but not a thing to feel obligated to.

"There are many artists out there who because of online popularity were able to procur jobs and begin careers in an over saturated industry."

Yeah, and a lot haven't.

"DoDeDo for instance left the fandom in a very immature way and then tried to come back only to be met with hostility."

You're going to have to explain that for those of us who don't know what the hell you're talking about.  I don't know who this person is or what 'immature' way they disappeared from the fandom.

"He/she got a job, that's GREAT but without us fans DoDeDo wouldn't have been able to make all that commission money in the meantime thus making that job all the more likely to obtain."

So... they're supposed to be eternally grateful to you for the rest of their lives...!?  If I sell you a car to tide me over with cash until I can buy a ticket to a city where I can secure a high-paying job for the rest of my life, I'll always be grateful you bought the car, but I'll still call you a knucklehead and disown you if you show up on my doorstop and ask me why I never told you I was moving away to a different city.

"In the end an artist can act however they want just like you can decide to be an asshole to every person you walk by on the street. It doesn't change the fact that many artists are unnecessarily rude and don't appreciate what the fans do for them."

You really should hear how some of the artists view their fans!  You think the -artists- are rude?  Boy, you ain't seen nothing!

Fact is, both sides of the equation have all kinds in their make-up.  So don't go trying to push the argument that fans are some sort of holymen who get dumped on by their heroes; there's plenty of the same getting dumped in the other direction as well.

24Report (sage)
at 28 Jun 2008: 17:34

http://www.websnark.com/archives/2004/10/entitlement_and.html

Not a perfect fit, but think about it.

25Report
Patch at 29 Jun 2008: 01:23

>>22

>"Furthermore, when fans start to feel attacked by their heroes..."
"Hold on!  How did this suddenly turn into an attack!?  The act of deleting his site and disappearing is an attack on the fans!?!?!?"

I think I'm gunna kinda play the devil's advocate here, because you're being too idealistic, and not pragmatic enough, on account of our discussing an issue that has real and immediate effects (as opposed to a discussion about Heaven and Hell for example.) :

Listen — suddenly deleting your art /feels/ like a snub to most fans, because a lot of them aren't informed otherwise, e.g.: if an artist makes an angry post, on, say, macrophile.com, saying they're leaving the fandom, and taking down their stuff let's say for a very legitimate reason, perhaps because they don't have enough time to do art anymore, perhaps 40% of the fans of this artist will not regularly browse the fora there, and then think that someone they idolize/appreciate/exploit/whatever has 'stabbed them in the back.'
From a general social standpoint, it *doesn't matter* whether the artist is just responding badly to drama, or whether they can't keep drawing/making art because they need to raise a child or they've simply lost interest or something... most fans won't know unless told, period. Yes it /is/ the fans' fault, but it doesn't change their reaction, and embittering them just because an artist is too lazy to type and copypaste a short little paragraph is a shitty thing to do, even if fans feel hurt without grounds to.

"I'm sorry, but if any fan feels that anybody not personally or contracturally associated with them is required to offer apologies or reasons for the choices he or she make in their lives, then that fan seriously needs to get over themselves.
There is no reason for anybody to get offended because an artist ceases to produce or explain their reasons.  That's just silly."

Get this — fans DO seriously need to get over themselves, but discussing it on /dis on Fchan or 4chan, or any other BBS _anywhere_ won't change that. Fans have to have their pride too, merited/misdirected or not.
Artists have usually every right to wipe their galleries without warning, but they can inflame a good part a given art-crowd if they do, whether they intend that or not. What sucks about this is that some people feel shirked because they're not included. /Discluding/ people is not illegal, and is not a privelidge that can be taken away for certain reasons, but sometimes it can be taken as MEAN and BITTER, by people who aren't being all the way filled in, for whatever reason. As a result, some naïve fans can very easily become angry and jaded when it comes to artists in general, so to avoid this, artists probably _should_ inform fans about their leaving or clearing their galleries.

>>23
>>24

I'm coming to the conclusion that reasonable fans should be less afraid to attack asshole -fans, so that artists don't feel like they're getting shit on without anyone caring.

26Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 04:00

>>25

Okay, seriously, what is the deal with you macrophile.com fans and stealth-plugging the site at every opportunity? I swear I've seen that URL used offhandedly more than any other furry site.

27Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 04:49

>>19
>>20
>>21
>>22
>>23
Allow me to simplify and clarify even further.

IF an artist uses the fandom for social or monetary gain they are SOCIALLY/FINANCIALLY obligated to notify the fandom as to why they are leaving/wiping the gallery. Whether it's direct financial gain(commissions, sales of cds, etc), indirect financial gain(popularity =ing job), mental gain(confidence, inspiration, etc) or artistic gain(constructive critique) they OWE the fandom.

If an artist DOESN'T want to be obligated to the fandom and has no interest in using the online social structure to gain any benefits then they shouldn't be posting online in the first place. The very fact they post online in social networking galleries and interact with the fans shows they WANT the benefits. It's socially irresponsible, rude and selfish to take the benefits then leave when you no longer "need" the fans.

Some fans truly are assholes and I attack them whenever possible but laying all the blame on one party is illogical. I repeat once again, it is not too much to ask of an artist they they explain why they are leaving when they have received social and monetary benefits from the fandom. (And yes, I have had many commissions go bad on me so this shit really pisses me off. I lost payment and half payments on 5 different artists. I was only able to recover one of those.)

28Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 05:16

>>24
wished i read that sooner

29Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 08:03

>>27
To continue my argument...I myself have a very hectic schedule but I make time to view and buy(when the option is available) art from artists who are great. As a result time, energy and money I don't really have are poured into the artists I admire. When one of those artists decides to pack up and leave without warning especially while trying to take my commission money with them it pisses me off.

The arguments in this thread thus far have been "the artists don't need the fans" and if that's how they feel these artists shouldn't interact and enjoy the benefits of the fandom. They should just stay the hell off the internet.

At the end of the day the fans also have many reasons that the artists may not be aware of for being pissed off at their leaving. I barely have free time so when I put it toward something it's a huge investment, many others could say the same. I also have very little money not dedicated to bills so when I pay some artist $50-200 it HURTS. I do it though, why? Because I fucking care about the artists and I want to see them make some money for doing something they love.

So you can call it "a sense of entitlement" all you want but many of us spend money we don't really have to help these artists out. So some of us have earned the right to complain when those sacrifices eventually lead to abandonment without reason or worse...stealing commission money. There are legitimate reasons to want to leave, i've seen shitty fans firsthand...but what i'm saying is the artists should think a LITTLE about the good fans to offer up that quick explanation so we can understand why.

30Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 09:23

>>27

"IF an artist uses the fandom for social or monetary gain they are SOCIALLY/FINANCIALLY obligated to notify the fandom as to why they are leaving/wiping the gallery."

No, they're not.  It's an activity, and that's all.  They don't need permission to come and go, and they don't need to tell anyone if they decide to pack it in if they choose not to.

"Whether it's direct financial gain(commissions, sales of cds, etc), indirect financial gain(popularity =ing job), mental gain(confidence, inspiration, etc) or artistic gain(constructive critique) they OWE the fandom."

They do NOT owe the fandom anything.  They've already contributed their time and their efforts by having had a website up in the first place.

"If an artist DOESN'T want to be obligated to the fandom and has no interest in using the online social structure to gain any benefits then they shouldn't be posting online in the first place."

No, this is entirely a BS notion, and an overated sense of worth on the part of the fan if he or she really feels this way.

"The very fact they post online in social networking galleries and interact with the fans shows they WANT the benefits. It's socially irresponsible, rude and selfish to take the benefits then leave when you no longer "need" the fans."

Frankly, this notion is what's selfish, and it's on the part of anyone who truly believes it.  The only reason an artist posts online is simply to interact, same as anybody else.  It's not as though the artist ever gets notice when a fan decides to not pay any attention to his work anymore or drop off of the net.

"Some fans truly are assholes and I attack them whenever possible but laying all the blame on one party is illogical. I repeat once again, it is not too much to ask of an artist they they explain why they are leaving when they have received social and monetary benefits from the fandom."

Yes, it is.  Any obligation an artist may have with any of his fans is expiated on the completion of any commission.  He does not owe anybody anything more than that.  Not even a goodbye if he doesn't want to give it.

"(And yes, I have had many commissions go bad on me so this shit really pisses me off. I lost payment and half payments on 5 different artists. I was only able to recover one of those.)"

And THAT is a completely different issue altogether.

31Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 09:35

>>29

"To continue my argument...I myself have a very hectic schedule but I make time to view and buy(when the option is available) art from artists who are great. As a result time, energy and money I don't really have are poured into the artists I admire. When one of those artists decides to pack up and leave without warning especially while trying to take my commission money with them it pisses me off."

As already pointed out, that is a completely different issue.  This is a matter of a broken contract, and not an issue of an artist simply leaving without bidding farewell to his fans.

"The arguments in this thread thus far have been "the artists don't need the fans" and if that's how they feel these artists shouldn't interact and enjoy the benefits of the fandom. They should just stay the hell off the internet."

The way a lot of them get ripped off with illegal copying and reposting of their work, a good number do.

"At the end of the day the fans also have many reasons that the artists may not be aware of for being pissed off at their leaving. I barely have free time so when I put it toward something it's a huge investment, many others could say the same."

'Investment' in terms of surfing the web and downloading their images is entirely up to you and is all your responsibility if you are really that obsessed with doing so.  And anybody who feels irate at an artist's departure and feels so violated needs more than a little less time on the web, and a little bit of counseling instead.

"I also have very little money not dedicated to bills so when I pay some artist $50-200 it HURTS. I do it though, why? Because I fucking care about the artists and I want to see them make some money for doing something they love."

It still does not obligate the artist in any way, unless he still owes you for the specific work you paid for.  Otherwise, any 'relationship' between you is DONE the moment the deal is completed.  He owes you nothing more, and you owe him nothing else.

"So you can call it "a sense of entitlement" all you want but many of us spend money we don't really have to help these artists out. So some of us have earned the right to complain when those sacrifices eventually lead to abandonment without reason or worse...stealing commission money."

Frankly, I don't see a lot of people complaining about this.  Just you.  And yeah, it does sound very much like a very disturbing and undeserved sense of entitlement.  When you purchase a piece of art, you're conducting a business transaction, not acquiring a right to some piece of his life.

And if someone owes you art for a paid commissiion, I say again: that is a different issue.

"There are legitimate reasons to want to leave, i've seen shitty fans firsthand...but what i'm saying is the artists should think a LITTLE about the good fans to offer up that quick explanation so we can understand why."

And I say again: it's none of your business if he or she don't want to say.  They do not owe you an explanation.

32Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 12:19

>>31
>>30
You apparently don't believe that common courteousy, respect and appreciation are obligatory. This is where our views differ.

33Report (sage)
at 29 Jun 2008: 13:21

>>32
Common courtesy to whom? Absolute strangers that happen to like what the artist produces that the artist has never met or otherwise know? People that the artist essentially doesn't know exist other than in the most abstract way? What obligation to explain their actions and give advance notice has the artist incurred?

 Should that artist incur expense- both actual and time-wise - to make sure that they don't somehow offend the delicate sensibilities of those people that they don't know or have anything to do with? Or is it just that you've annoyed that you can no longer suck at a resource at your convenience and want a heads up so you can vacuum it up before it disappears?

You, obviously, don't believe in common courtesy, respect or show much appreciation if you blame the artist for not keeping you intimately informed of the details of their life and announce their personal  actions in advance, so why should they treat you any better?

34Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 13:56

A courtesy is not obligatory.  They are non-exclusive and immutual terms.

35Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 14:02

How about we think about this sensibly.

Artists make art.
Artists may distribute it for free, or they may sell it.
People pay artists for the art that they sell.

Artists in this fandom are businesspeople. If they're good, they get a following of fans willing to drop cash for their art. Ultimately, though, the artists' work is their own property, and they can do whatever they want with it. Fans that think artists have some obligation to them are suffering from a severe case of inflated self worth. Unless you pay an artist in advance, they have no obligation to create anything for you, or make their work available to you.

36Report
at 29 Jun 2008: 22:32

an artist has every obligation to continue to produce art, IF *big  if* they want people to continue to like them ---->artists that are in this for popularity.
an artist has every obligation to provide art for cash providing they are in it for greed and profit.
an artist has every obligation to continue producing art at the rate they have led people to expect by their frequency of production.
an artist has every right to expect people to respect them as well tho.
a balance is enforced and those who are to uptight to accept that balance simply get weeded out of the furry artist gene pool.
and a new one steps up to take their place.

37Report
at 30 Jun 2008: 00:13

>>36

"an artist has every obligation to continue producing art at the rate they have led people to expect by their frequency of production."

No. Unless they signed a contract or otherwise promised to do so, they are not obligated to.

38Report
at 30 Jun 2008: 02:24

Somebody's using that word 'obligation' pretty freely.  I don't think it means what they think it means.

39Report (sage)
at 30 Jun 2008: 05:05

>>36
Wrong on every count. They have no obligation for any of that, nor do they have a right to expect those other things you went on about. They might assume an obligation, though they're under no compulsion to do so and it would be entirely self-imposed. They might also have a right to expect certain reactions, but that certainly doesn't guarantee that those reactions will  happen with any certainty.

I think >>38 has it right. I think it's time you looked up the words in a dictionary.

Personally, I think you've just arguing for the sake of arguing, as I doubt most people would consider your stated view as being a reasonable approach and the norm. It certainly wouldn't make you many friends or get you invited to parties. You'd be one of those sorts of fans that artists tell each other about when swapping horror stories and prime material for CYD to point to as one of the perfect examples of what's wrong with Furry Fans.

If you actually believe what you're espousing... Well, you're one of those that cause a lot of that 'weeding' you say is going on in much the same way that Agent Orange did in Viet Nam, If the majority started acting the way you seem to think they should, that rate of weeding would shortly outstrip the replacement rate by an order of magnitude.

40Report
at 30 Jun 2008: 09:31

>>39 I am one of the artists *snicker* - ===seriously not arguing to just be arguing===.
see, the thing is, both sides are right including where I said artists do owe people stuff. but that takes removing some carefully crafted blinders to see.
if artists don't like how things are then they have every right to get butt hurt and leave or be driven out.
and im done think on what has been said, there is truth.

134Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage