Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8113431" data-attributes="member: 59082">The twitter mob is a small fraction, and maybe not the right audience if they're outraged. Maybe it should be seen as a litmus test: If my work offends you, then maybe its not for you - but don't ask me to change the art to reduce your offense; just find other artists that you like. The problem is how much cultural weight this mob yields - it far surpasses their actual percentage of most potential audiences. I've seen store owners kick out abusive customers and not lose any sleep over it. I think the twitter mob could be put in the same category.Of course art is a bit different and transcends mere commerce. An artist, in my view, should be free to produce their vision. Yes, the market decides on whether it will receive financial compensation, and I suppose commercial artists are more cognizant of audience; perhaps the definition of &quot;commercial art&quot; is that its primary focus is as a commodity, something to be sold. But art itself is not first and foremost a commercial product - it is a creative act, or at least starts that way. I feel that, as a culture, we should protect artists and allow them to produce freely without running everything through a sieve of potential offense, triggering, etc. And then naturally let their audience develop. Anyhow, take your logic to the extreme and we end up in that apogee that Yossman warns us about. In today's climate, almost anything could be found offensive by someone. I suppose a savvy artist has to weigh this, and consider possible outcomes, but I dislike the idea that a small group of people who took too many critical theory classes would dissuade them from being authentic to their vision. It becomes even worse when it is someone who isn't actually interested in the art, just the outrage (e.g. that tweeter who started the latest round of Orcgate, who doesn't even play D&amp;D).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8113431, member: 59082"] The twitter mob is a small fraction, and maybe not the right audience if they're outraged. Maybe it should be seen as a litmus test: If my work offends you, then maybe its not for you - but don't ask me to change the art to reduce your offense; just find other artists that you like. The problem is how much cultural weight this mob yields - it far surpasses their actual percentage of most potential audiences. I've seen store owners kick out abusive customers and not lose any sleep over it. I think the twitter mob could be put in the same category. Of course art is a bit different and transcends mere commerce. An artist, in my view, should be free to produce their vision. Yes, the market decides on whether it will receive financial compensation, and I suppose commercial artists are more cognizant of audience; perhaps the definition of "commercial art" is that its primary focus is as a commodity, something to be sold. But art itself is not first and foremost a commercial product - it is a creative act, or at least starts that way. I feel that, as a culture, we should protect artists and allow them to produce freely without running everything through a sieve of potential offense, triggering, etc. And then naturally let their audience develop. Anyhow, take your logic to the extreme and we end up in that apogee that Yossman warns us about. In today's climate, almost anything could be found offensive by someone. I suppose a savvy artist has to weigh this, and consider possible outcomes, but I dislike the idea that a small group of people who took too many critical theory classes would dissuade them from being authentic to their vision. It becomes even worse when it is someone who isn't actually interested in the art, just the outrage (e.g. that tweeter who started the latest round of Orcgate, who doesn't even play D&D). [/QUOTE]

Verification