fchan

discussion

Artists deleting their galleries

Pages:1 41 81 121
94Report
at 2 Jul 2008: 20:13

>>93
hows about having an artists opinion

95Report
Draconis Khaan at 3 Jul 2008: 00:36

>>81
>"Social obligations and contracts EXIST.
Social obligations and contracts are AUTOMATIC.
Social obligations and contracts are VOLUNTARY.
Social obligations and contracts are ENFORCED(by the people affected)"

I think there are some things that need to be cleared up.

ob·li·ga·tion    (ŏb'lĭ-gā'shən)
n. 
   1. The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.
   2.
         1. A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
         2. A course of action imposed by society, law, or conscience by which one is bound or restricted.
         3. A legal agreement stipulating a specified payment or action, especially if the agreement also specifies a penalty for failure to comply.
         4. The document containing the terms of such an agreement.
         5. Something owed as payment or in return for a special service or favor.
         6. The service or favor for which one is indebted to another.
   3. The constraining power of a promise, contract, law, or sense of duty.
   4. Law
         1. A legal agreement stipulating a specified payment or action, especially if the agreement also specifies a penalty for failure to comply.
         2. The document containing the terms of such an agreement.
         3. Something owed as payment or in return for a special service or favor.
         4. The service or favor for which one is indebted to another.
   5.
         1. Something owed as payment or in return for a special service or favor.
         2. The service or favor for which one is indebted to another.
   6. The state, fact, or feeling of being indebted to another for a special service or favor received.


con·tract    (kŏn'trākt')
n. 
   1.
         1. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.
         2. The writing or document containing such an agreement.
         3. The last and highest bid of a suit in one hand in bridge.
         4. The number of tricks thus bid.
         5. Contract bridge.
   2. The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.
   3. Marriage as a formal agreement; betrothal.
   4. Games
         1. The last and highest bid of a suit in one hand in bridge.
         2. The number of tricks thus bid.
         3. Contract bridge.
   5. A paid assignment to murder someone: put out a contract on the mobster's life.

v.   (kən-trākt', kŏn'trākt') con·tract·ed, con·tract·ing, con·tracts

v.   tr.
   1. To enter into by contract; establish or settle by formal agreement: contract a marriage.
   2. To acquire or incur: contract obligations; contract a serious illness.
   3.
         1. To reduce in size by drawing together; shrink.
         2. To pull together; wrinkle.
   4. Grammar To shorten (a word or words) by omitting or combining some of the letters or sounds, as do not to don't.

v.   intr.
   1. To enter into or make an agreement: contract for garbage collection.
   2. To become reduced in size by or as if by being drawn together: The pupils of the patient's eyes contracted.

Please inform us which definitions of "obligation" and "contract" you are using and exactly how they apply to the posting of artwork online.

96Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 06:02

>>95
Look, I never said it was logical, fair or following current definitions. All I said was that these contracts/obligations are unavoidable because the fans create them in their own mind. Thus if an artist is dependent upon (or will become dependent upon in the future) the fans loyalty it is within their best interests to NOT piss them off. If taking 20-30 seconds out of their day explaining is too much to ask to do that then they don't deserve any fans when they do come back.

Look at CMX for instance when they released Tenjo Tenge all censored to high hell. They waited WAY too long to respond to the people who were outraged. When they finally responded it was a half-assed response, then they responded again after like 6 volumes had already been released stating that the "original artist gave us permission to do this" as if that was somehow supposed to make it better.

CMX had entered into a social contract/obligation(to do the right thing) the moment they interacted with the public via offering a product. Had they simply responded promptly they would have got a LOT less shit. Though their refusal to simply release an uncensored version alongside the censored version would have still bit them in the ass.

My point is...an artist taking part in a social community is bound by social contracts formed within the minds of fans. It's not logical, it's not fair and it's not entirely voluntary(even though they can ignore it and face consequences) but it's WHAT HAPPENS. So if keeping them relatively happy is easy to do then why not?

97Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 08:36

>>96

I don't care if the fans ARE creating these expectations in their own minds.  That only proves what's been said all along, that they're experiencing an overinflated sense of entitlement.  There's no obligation involved here simply because they -think- there is.  That's entirely bogus.

And what you're describing with CMX, hell that goes on ALL the time with EVERY publisher.  Fans get piqued every day when one of their favorite artists or writers get replaced, or when a character they like gets removed or goes through some change they don't like, or when their favorite book gets cancelled or goes up in price.  That's not 'social obligation', that's BUSINESS.  If a publisher had to consult with fans over each and every change, their books would never progress at all, and they'd soon run into the ground.

WHAT HAPPENS is not a 'social contract', but fans behaving like spoiled brats.  Doesn't matter if they think so or not; that's what it is.

It's also the mark of People Who Dearly Need To Get A Life.



98Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 10:16

>>97
You'd make a terrible businessman.

99Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 10:56

>>98

But I'd make a great realist.

100Report
RailRide at 3 Jul 2008: 11:16

Artists have every right to burn bridges behind them, just like anyone else is entitled to.

In my opinion, there isn't much point to posting their works in the first place if they're prone to wiping them without notice, though, but who said logic was necessary to use 'Teh Intarweb'?. You just shouldn't expect to do so free of consequence.

I myself wouldn't pull such a stunt, even though as has been said many times before in this thread, I'm entitled to not only do it, but not tell anyone why. But if some El-Bizarro combination of circumstances led me to remove my artistic  presence, I don't think I could do it without at least giving some hint as to why.

101Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 11:58

>>98 I bet if you and he had a contest to keep a business afloat the longest, he'd win. ;)

102Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 14:41

>>98

Actually, I bet you're wrong. If a businessman were to make up obligations where there were none, it would cause nothing but problems.

103Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 15:58

>>99
Good businessmen are realists, they just realize that their personal morals have nothing to do with the reality of the consumer mindset.

>>100
No one is debating the right to burn bridges. The only thing being debated upon is the fact that artists WILL face consequences for burning those bridges and thus it's a stupid move to make unless they plan on never coming back.

>>101
You are wrong.

>>102
Businesses have even more obligations to the consumer than anyone/thing else. A business can be profitable ignoring these obligations but eventually their decisions will bite them in the ass.

The RIAA is a key example of this. Their anti-consumer mindset worked flawlessly UNTIL the people saw they didn't have to put up with overpriced CD's($20-25 back in the day) where artists who made the music recieved pennies($1-2 per CD).

It's because of people's so called sense of entitlement and unnecessary obligations that prices were driven down, more options were given to listen to music BEFORE buying and now finally DRM is starting to see a decline compared to the initial reactions to piracy.

The same goes for artists who think they can get away with being dramawhores ripping their gallery down, then putting it back up, then ripping it down, then leaving for 6 months, then coming back and expecting the fans to smile and be thankful.

104Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 16:55

it is semi frightening how well the compararison of some artists to the riaa stands up. 

105Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 21:05

>>103

Oh, brother.  What a convoluted piece of rationalization.  What a piece of crap.  No wonder you keep going on the way you do.

All right, debate's over.  Let's get to directly answering the questions you posed in the OP.

No, I don't get tired of spending the majority of my day hunting down every single gallery to get art before they decide taking it down, because a) I don't waste that much time; I got a life to tend to; b) I don't let myself be ruled by such trivial concerns; c) I'm not paranoid enough to worry about what some artist may or my not do if I'm not there to monitor his site.  And yes, it IS too much to ask that he notify you before he pull up stakes.

And don't be trying to snow us by all this concern over 'social obligations'; you're just pissed because you're not getting what you think you're entitled to: more free porn from any given artist.

Anybody else want to weigh in the actual questions asked in the OP?

106Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 22:20

>>105  we must all bow before your clearly thought out message.
oh.... right, not all that clear.
  Could you be so kind as to try that again, and attempt to refute the claims that an obligation is created because enough people think there is an obligation created. (call it moral call it social, but it matters little if the outcome is that ones reputation takes a hit for doing something.)  it seems 2+2 does indeed = 4 in this sort of case.
 PS crying entitled has been used so often its lost its power.

107Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 22:48

>>105
"debate's over"

Ah yes, the famous words of a man who is BEATEN and has no counter-argument. Instead of bowing out of the debate gracefully and with honor you choose to insult me, pretend i'm not making any sense then change the subject.

My argument has stayed consistent and i've done nothing but try to clarify and explain why I think the way I do. You on the other hand offer NOTHING to this debate other than your unbending opinion which has zero factual evidence behind it.

Regardless of whether my views are "right" or "proper", there IS evidence supporting them. You on the other hand are just playing the "NO UR WRONG" game and keep repeating the same old tired statements with zero evidence to show that my way of thinking is wrong.

Of course that could be because there is no counter-argument sufficient enough to beat me because no matter how illogical and unfair it is for the fans to create obligations within their minds...it's a fact of life, it can't be avoided. A smart artist realizes this and acts accordingly, a dumb artist(like you if you are infact an artist) does whatever the hell they want then wonders why people are acting like douches toward them.

108Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 22:58

>>107
"...no matter how illogical and unfair it is for the fans to create obligations within their minds.."

So, you admit that it's wrong, and by extension your assertion isn't 100% either? And no, >>105 didn't admit defeat: he was addressing what this discussion was supposed to be about and the OP's concern, rather than your attempt to get your quota or being pedantic in. Learn to distinguish what's being addressed rather than being egocentric enough to think that you're the center of the discussion.

>>106

I think >>105 did a pretty good job in addressing the OP rather than your journey into "I'm RIGHT, DAMMIT!"

109Report
at 3 Jul 2008: 23:17

>>108 i thought the message was "be more clear", but whatever makes you happy.

110Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 01:19

Do you want to know why artists nuke their galleries and leave without saying anything?

It's because of bawww-faggotry like this.

It's just easier to drop it all than try to 'please' the fans and offer an explanation why you're leaving. Since you'll be getting retarded arguments like this thread, personal insults and generic drama no matter how good reason you actually might have.

Seriously, watching furries to quarrel in the internet over the tiniest shit is like watching a pack of retarded children fight in the sandbox. But how to fix that? You can't. That's the problem. If you open your mouth about the whole problem the shit-stirrers will be there to snark you down and only thing you achieve is some more drama. So it's just better to pack your shit and go.

111Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 01:24

>>110 And yet here you are arguing along with us. Honestly, take a look at what you're contributing. Are you a shining example of how to be? No, you're one of the fags! So STFU. Because honestly?

*points at you and laughs. Then laughs some more...*

112Report
Draconis Khaan at 4 Jul 2008: 01:59

I believe I have a grasp on the disagreement here: It's all one big misunderstanding. The two sides are engaging in completely different debates, and they don't even realize it.

On one side we have a person or people (damned anonymous system) insisting the people will get pissed off if an artist disappears without warning or explanation, and that to avoid this they should give a warning or an explanation.

On the other side we have people insisting that it's completely unreasonable for people to become irate if an artist disappears, provided they have no outstanding commissions.

In short: One group is arguing whether or not fans *will* get angry. The other is arguing whether or not they *should*.

Does no one else see that these are two separate issues? In fact, >>96 and >>107 have promoted both viewpoints at the same damn time.

113Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 03:39

I don't think artists should have to give a reasoning why they deleted their stuff if they don't feel like it.  Some fans are going to be upset either way, regardless if a reason is given or not.

The accepted fact here seems to be that all artists put their work up publicly to get something back out of it.  That may not be fully true. Some artists may just put their work up solely for the sake of sharing what they have put a part of their life into. Some don't look for fans, money, or whatever.

114Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 09:29

>>112
Therein lies the problem. Both arguments are RIGHT. Fans WILL get angry even though they SHOULDNT.

I never tried to say it was right or logical, it's just the mindset of the people and so any artist who relies upon the fans needs to recognize it.

A lot of stuff in the world happens via illogical mindsets or because of pressure from illogical people. In a perfect world that wouldn't happen but we don't live in a perfect world.

115Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 10:14

>>107

"Ah yes, the famous words of a man who is BEATEN and has no counter-argument. Instead of bowing out of the debate gracefully and with honor you choose to insult me, pretend i'm not making any sense then change the subject."

It's not a matter of being 'beaten', but a matter of bringing the issue to a close.  The counter-argument all along has been that your argument has absolutely no basis to begin with. 

"My argument has stayed consistent and i've done nothing but try to clarify and explain why I think the way I do. You on the other hand offer NOTHING to this debate other than your unbending opinion which has zero factual evidence behind it."

And it doesn't.  Simply because you insist that there is does not give it any validity.  Your argument isn't 'consistent', but merely stubborn refusal to accept the truth that it's bs.  But then, I wouldn't expect you to, since you're so adamant about it.

"Regardless of whether my views are "right" or "proper", there IS evidence supporting them. You on the other hand are just playing the "NO UR WRONG" game and keep repeating the same old tired statements with zero evidence to show that my way of thinking is wrong."

That's probably because it's impossible to prove a negative.  In spite of what you claim, -you- really haven't proven anything either, except for a very singular and self-involved mindset.

Which, interestingly, brings us to this:

>>114

"I never tried to say it was right or logical, it's just the mindset of the people and so any artist who relies upon the fans needs to recognize it.

A lot of stuff in the world happens via illogical mindsets or because of pressure from illogical people. In a perfect world that wouldn't happen but we don't live in a perfect world."

Now you're weaseling out of your original claim of a 'social contract' and 'social obligation' by saying that it wasn't what you meant, but that it's rooted in the mindsets of fans, and that you acknowledge that it's illogical?

I agree completely that its an illogical mindset that people expect things on some principle that makes sense only to themselves.  But it doesn't really matter what these fans think or expect, for whatever reasons make sense in their own minds -- it does not create an obligation where one does not exist.

If somebody has an irrational expectation from a second person, that is entirely the first person's problem; it does not obligate the second person.

116Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 10:31

>>115
You are either a troll or a REALLY dense human being.

"Now you're weaseling out of your original claim of a 'social contract' and 'social obligation' by saying that it wasn't what you meant, but that it's rooted in the mindsets of fans, and that you acknowledge that it's illogical?"

No, they are still social contracts/obligations, the logic(or illogic) of them has nothing to do with their existence. I've been arguing this point consistently.

"If somebody has an irrational expectation from a second person, that is entirely the first person's problem; it does not obligate the second person."

You are right, it doesn't obligate them and i've already agreed to this. However, an artist who refuses to recognize these imagined obligations(which in turn makes them REAL) is subject to the negative consequences.

You are just arguing that these obligations SHOULDNT exist when they do. The second someone creates an obligation in their mind and applies it to someone else the obligation exists. It's logic, fairness or legitimacy does NOT matter. If a large group of people do this then you better damn well believe people wanting votes/money/support will bend to the pressure regardless of whether it's a just cause.

Get the fuck over it.

117Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 10:44

this is a good example of ideals verses cold hard reality of social interactions, but then, this is furry and the finer point of social graces is a thin edged blade that many therein are blind to. So it shoukd not be a surprize, when people think there can be no obligation without an explicit agreement.
Artists get the hint! ""people will expect things from you,"" it comes with the territory.

118Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 10:49

>>115
A good way of knowing when someone is losing an argument is when they start attacking the opponent's style itself, instead of the opponent's platform.

Let's end this thread here:

It's a decent thing for artists to respect their fans and give warning before deleting galleries or going out of business. Respecting fans means that the fans will respect you in return, and give you continued custom.

It's not an obligation to do as such, and don't throw dictionary definitions at me, I know full well what it means.

This seems clear to me, I don't know how we got up to over 100 replies perpetuating this pointless argument.

119Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 10:57

>>118

Yes!  And that's what I've been saying all along from the very beginning of this thread.  That and the fact that the discontinuation of a website is not a disrespect to the fans, and neither is the lack of an offered explanation.

The fact that fans would automatically assume such without considering that there might have been some extenuating circumstances or some really personal reasons for the lack of explanation for an artist's withdrawal, and a ready acceptance that he must be an asshole, is actually a disrespect to the artist.

And I agree that the thread has run its course.

120Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 11:17

>>118
Wrong. Insults come when people get frustrated at the absolute illogic of another who refuses to bend their opinion or accept any other definition to something than their own.

The ONLY difference in ideaology here is that one person thinks it's impossible to avoid the illogical obligations fans create while the other pretends that their mind = the worlds mind and that if something doesn't make sense to them it just plain doesn't exist.

FACTS say that these obligations exist and that they are unavoidable. The legitimacy, morality or logic of these obligations are IRRELEVANT. When someone refuses to acknowledge these facts they are fucking morons and trying to "win" a debate that could simply be compromised upon.

This thread should have been over and done with 50+ posts ago.

121Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 14:38

??  What facts?  All I've seen are a lot of opinions flying back and forth.

122Report (sage)
at 4 Jul 2008: 14:42

>>120
Shut up. Apparently you're not willing to compromise either, so you attack other posters. Instead of saying "I see what you're saying, but that's not entirely true," you cry out that they're wrong, their arguments are bad, and that they shouldn't be taken seriously because they don't agree with you.

Threadstop PLEASE.

123Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 15:06

>>122
What the fuck are you smoking? I already said(MANY TIMES) that I see where his argument is coming from but it doesn't change the fact that the obligations exist because they are created illogically within the fans mind. I repeat, the legitimacy, morality or logic of these obligations is IRRELEVANT. They exist, PERIOD.

I understand the counter-argument but to say the obligations don't exist simply because they are illogical, immoral or complete nonsense is in itself absolute bullshit. I already compromised and admitted the obligations are a bunch of nonsense but i'm not going to compromise the way YOU WANT(abandoning the factual evidence) to say that because the obligations are "wrong" or "don't follow strict legal definitions" that they don't exist within the minds of fans.

124Report (sage)
at 4 Jul 2008: 15:22

>>123
Blah blah blah read my opinion here: >>118

I don't care about either side, it's just sickening that you'd put yourself above everyone else because you don't like what you're hearing. It's a bit hypocritical.

125Report
at 4 Jul 2008: 16:48

>>124
Blah blah blah right back at you.

126Report
Patch at 6 Jul 2008: 03:28

>>65 + >>91 The reason for the lack of "end of discussion" is because the use of the word "obligatory" and "contract" is too strong, and is making everyone uncomfortable.

>>78

Don't make me quote The Sphere at you.

>>85 "There is no... [social obligation] connected to erecting a website."
What if your website with stories/art has a comment-section? Then you're screwed/obligated.

>>94 "hows about having an artists opinion"
We tried that already, it didn't end the argument; it actually made it worse.

>>98 "You'd make a terrible businessman."
>>99 "But I'd make a great realist."
Ja, a GAY realist.

>>57 + >>59 + >>67 + >>68
Damn + lol + jeez + you guys, zomg
>>72 "You started it." + >>74 "No, you started it."
wtf + srsly
>>105 + >>106 + >>107
You both need to understand that the debate is now _how the /fans/ feel (aka Locke's social contract -theory)_ vs. _contract /law/_
OR _how I learned to love Fchan's /dis_
>>115 + >>116
HOLY + CRAP

>>112
'Looks like you've pinned the tail on the donkey, yet here we are, dozens of posts later, our two main competitors litterally exchanging "blah blah blahs."

>>76 + >>79 + >>82 + >>84 + >>103
THIS IS THE BLAGOTUBES, not real life. Please don't compare them, that's like comparing apples and oranges, which is impossible and you can't — because there's a saying that says you can't.

Dude, say your parents just suddenly leave when you're 18 and 1/2 and come back later and you're all pissed 'cuz you had a hard time finding a place to live / making ends meet / enjoying the luxuries they helped you with, and then /they're like/ NO OMG, you're being childish and your liek wtf zom u guys idkwthigo/gtfo.

>>110
Do we have evidence that an artist has ever taken down their gallery(s) because of arguments on FCHAN? If so LOL, if no LOL anyway. :P

>>113
Yes, but /reasonable/ fans will be less mad if they know why. 10% of all fanbases are pissed all the time, reason or no.

>>THREAD
rofl

127Report (sage)
at 6 Jul 2008: 08:54

THREADSTOP

Where the heck are the mods?

128Report (sage)
at 6 Jul 2008: 10:05

>>127
Where are the mods? Probably either lurking on IRC, stunned and gaping at what has been wrought here or too busy laughing their collective asses off at it: possibly doing both.

Aside from some ad hominem, pedantic whinging and demonstrations of illogic that would have Aristotle turning twenty grand in his grave, it's been almost interesting. I doubt it has  hit the point of no return in the mod's eyes quite yet.

No doubt they're giving it the ol' hairy eyeball, though.

129Report
at 13 Jul 2008: 19:16

I would love for my artwork to receive the attention that such artists have gotten and don't seem to appreciate...

130Report
BenLWolf at 19 Jul 2008: 17:44

Look guys, it's part of the Great Furry Artist Cycle. You simply have to accept it. In the beginning the furry artist produces tons of medium to low quality work then less and less as the art improves and their popularity increases. Once they've hit the peak of their popularity an issue comes up and shatters their mental world. At this moment they either begin kicking and screaming at everyone who will listen, fall off the internet, pull down their galleries, or some combination of all three. After a few months they relize they miss the worship of their fans and quickly come back to be adored and welcomed once again until their popularity once again reaches critical mass.

131Report
BenLWolf at 19 Jul 2008: 18:07

And really Artists can solve this problem by carefully cultivating a pool of "pet fans", people they know will support them and stroke their egos while providing ideas they need. You simply embrace your pet fans and redirect all the other reponses to either a giant virtual garbage can or a polite automated answering system so you never have to see what the masses think. Have a seperate system set up for commissions so they can actualy get your attention and perma-block anyone who uses that for anything BUT getting your attention for commissions.

132Report
at 22 Jul 2008: 08:52

The 'masses' are overated.

133Report
at 23 Jul 2008: 01:48

You know, a bit of helpful info for those that claim artists have no obligations: There IS a bit of middle ground between balls-out generosity and "omfg call the police because he didn't follow his obligations!!". There IS something that's more compulsory about giving your fans a heads up than just pure generosity, but less compulsory than a legally binding contract.

Let's say you just blow your friends off and stop answering their calls/ completely start ignoring them. They have a "right" to be angry at you, in the non-legal, purely social way, correct? It's more than just a generosity; more than just a little extra something that the friends don't deserve but "would be nice" for you to explain to them, correct?

Now, in the case that they just start demanding your time and attention, and demanding presents and such from you, then yes, THEY'RE in the wrong and have a false sense of entitlement.

In the case of fans, I don't think that they always get the same treatment. If the artist just posts art and is fairly indifferent to whether anyone sees it or not (as in, just putting it out for anybody who may enjoy it, like in the "giving your old shit to good-will" sense), then there is no obligation of any sort. If the artist is in a more symbiotic relationship with their fans, however, I think the same social rules apply as with the friend example. That's my two cents, and you know pennies are worth less than the copper they're made of nowadays, right?

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