July 11, 2013

The trouble with being a trendsetter...


20 comments:

  1. I'm sure that he has never realized that if HE is the only one who likes "the cool stuff", there will not be enough demand for the creators of said "cool stuff" to continue creating it; whereas, if enough OTHER people like it as well, it may continue to be created.

    I also expect that he is the type who will bemoan the fact that HIS cool stuff isn't being made any more, because everyone else are sheep and too stupid to know what really is cool.

    I guess he just can't win, can he? Poor baby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said.

      Delete
    2. That presumes that people only ever make "cool stuff" to please (or appease) an audience and never for the sake of creation in itself.

      And what a sad bland world it would be if that were true.

      Delete
    3. dogg, making stuff just to make stuff is cool and all, but continuing to make a thing a lot of the time depends on getting some sort of validation that the work is appreciated and that the creator is not just screeching into the void as he waits for his own immanent demise.

      also, putting the stuff out there takes resources and getting more resources needed for more creation and distribution is another cool thing that enables folks to keep making stuff.

      Rock Over London
      Rock On Chicago
      Excelsior!

      Delete
    4. That is still assuming the audience has to matter.

      It doesn't. Not always.

      Nor does any financial compensation. Have you never heard of hobbies?

      Delete
    5. Well said Killa B!

      Anon 5:14 - it's like you've never met a human. I know hobbies and hobbyists; plenty of them post up photos of their initial (and continuing) wobbly, wonky work for the attention and approval of an audience. Take deviantart for example. What is the greater bulk of that site, if not a shrill cry for validation?

      Delete
    6. Deviantart is hardly a good example for human creativity as a whole, and god help us if it were. And even at that, what you are continuing to fail to comprehend is that they still produce their "wobbly wonky work", audience approval or no.

      Bad art wouldn't exist (or would be a lot more rare) if people stopped creating it at the first negative feedback because it's so bad.

      Delete
    7. Arguable that Deviantart isn't a good example of the range of human creativity (or the range of human ability at least) but that's not my point: it's a very good example of people looking for an audience; and that's what you (if you are the other Anons) fail to comprehend from the start. You seem to think that the default human condition is (or should be) a detached island unto itself, with no intent of holding up a thing and asking "what do you think?" I'm not sure where you're getting this - it's certainly not my experience of anyone with a jot of creativity.

      Negative criticism won't stop bad artists in DA, no; but that's not to say it's because they're above it all, and perfectly satisfied in their own mind. For one thing, bad, inexperienced 'artists' tend to be the most adamant in their works' quality, and the prickliest whenever someone gives the lightest tug on the smallest loose thread of said work. Usually at the same time. The wounded pride don't exactly mesh with the claimed self-confidence, do it?
      The defensiveness and mental gymnastics can also influence *where* people go looking for an audience, IMO. In my experience many people across many hobby 'n' art sites have no hesitation in applauding crap, and this is where DA comes in again. Compare the vicious circle of validation and the 'Emperor's New Clothes' phenomenon in some 'communities' there, to the common 'nasty, hurtful' image of honest criticism at conceptart.org. These people don't avoid CA because they're perfectly fine without comments from others; they avoid CA because they'll get a lot more *positive* comments at DA. As an example: I can't remember who it was, off the top of my head, but there was once a truly dire Sonic the Hedgehog fan-artist who turned up at CA. He was convinced of the quality of his work, and kept trying to justify it, not with nonreliance on an audience but with his pageviews on DA. I.e. nothing but reliance on an audience, however fleeting.

      Delete
    8. We're not saying that at all. What we're saying is that some people create cool things just for the sake of creating them regardless of whether or not people approve of their creation or pay them for it. These people will not be found on DeviantArt.

      In point of fact, history is full of creative people, good and bad, who did their own thing for themselves and didn't give a damn about what anyone else thought about it or whether or not anyone was going to pay them for it. Just look at Emily Dickinson. Or Darger. Or Hampton. Or Consalvos. Do you really think Wesley Willis would have hung up his plastic keyboard without a record contract?

      Moreover, if the only reason people created things was for approval or payment there wouldn't be nearly as many cool things created.

      Delete
  2. Darn. Now I want to know what he likes so I can 'wreck it' for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh. The urge is well-nigh irresistable, isn't it?

      Delete
  3. I think your Lady Death collection is safe, Sport.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm just the opposite. I use Facebook to enlighten people. I want everyone to benefit from my vast knowledge of coolness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This also needs to be tagged "jerks."

    ReplyDelete
  6. The New Dark Shadows rules. Read it. Love it. Because I'm sick to death of all of the titles that i love getting cancelled.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The point that everyone seems to be missing is that once the content gains popularity, the content then changes to try and accommodate an even wider audience. (re: Metallica). Look up the term "sellout" sometime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And clearly, not having facebook is the solution. This phenomenon you are describing NEVER HAPPENED before there was facebook.

      Delete
    2. Certainly it has, as per even my own example. However, online social networking is a far more efficient means of creating this phenomenon.

      Delete
  8. Pssst, you don't HAVE to tell Facebook what you like. It genuinely surprises me that so many people do not understand that you are in control of your level of involvement on Facebook, and that it is indeed possible to have a Facebook account in which you don't divulge your entire life story for the world to see, and that you don't have to be a self-important, narcissistic twat to be on Facebook. All it takes is a little bit of discipline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And by the same token, you don't HAVE to have a Facebook account. Thus validating the customer's point.

      Delete

.

.