![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A bit of a rant/observation a long time coming...
((note: While I'm addressing all fanworks I will tend to lapse and address fanart more as it's simply what pertains to me on a greater level))
There are many artists/writers who feel that fanart/fiction is not a valid form of expression. That these works are somehow lesser than those of completely original thought. The idea is that because it is based on a pre-existing premise with established characters, possibly some background information, and at least a bit of plot, that it lacks any creativity whatsoever. That it is not art.
So... what is art? What is creativity? What makes this so much better than this? In terms of the fanartist going pro, aka beginning to work on a series in which they were formerly a fanartist(ex. Karine drawing the Gargoyles comics), how do you classify that?
First off, the definition of 'art'. One of the more debated topics to exist is 'what exactly is art and what isn't', mostly in relation to porn (although I personally think some porn is just another form of art). The truth is there is no solid definition. One person's art is another person's trash, sometimes literally. For the sake of things let's go to a logical source to define something, a dictionary.
art –noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
Yikes, just try to digest that. Once your stomache settles and you've managed to pop an aspirin look back at the first definition. 'the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.' Essentially 'art' is something, sometimes not tangible, that is to be beautiful, appealing, or important. I'll accept that.
So were does creativity come into play on that? The key argument in this fight against fancreations. Simple. Think about what creativity entails. The story of Romeo and Juliet had been told a million times before by the time ol' Will got to it under different names and premises yet it's hailed as some great work. This isn't to say originality is initally dead and I honestly don't believe the whole line about how everything has been done before, but more that it's how you dress it up. How many stories are there about vampires for example? No matter what you do there's definately little originality there. You make them a classic example and it's been done. You make them lacking all the special powers and it's been done. You put them in between and it's been done. You make them fall in love with a human and it's been done. You make a human fall in love with them and it's been done. You make the vampire depressed over 'living' and it's been done.... Yet this is what is called original. No one is going to go up to Anne Rice and call her an unoriginal hack over writing about vampires. Yet write about firebenders and that's a whole other story.
While on the topic, what about comic books(and similar media). Batman still exists yet the original creators are no more. Clearly the people working on it now are fanartists/writers then, right? Batman is an established character with an established history/plot/ect. Yet is anyone going to call Paul Dini a writer of fanfiction? Of course not. But why? Does his getting paid by the company that now own the rights to Batman change it so much that he can be considered original while those under no contract writing for fun are demeaned? Are the works of Bruce Timm so much more original than those drawing for their personal enjoyment?
So why does this predjudice exist? Why can I draw a picture of a 'pretty-boy vampire who can walk in daylight and hates all of humanity except that one special snowflake and drinks only animal blood because of it' and be called 'original' yet a picture of a 'steampunkized JLA' is seen as less. Why do people continue to do fanart if it's viewed in this manner? Well, at least that answer's simple.
Fanart is typically created for 3 reasons.
1) Popularity. Anyone who's ever been a member of DeviantArt KNOWS that fanart is going to get the most views. Because when using the search function 9 times out of 10 the person is typing in what they want to see(normally a character or series) instead of some broader idea. I'll admit the only time I seem to deviate from this pattern is when looking into a new style of art, ex. when starting to work on scratchboard I used DA to see what others had done in scratchboard to get an idea of what I could do.
2) Fandom. You love the series. You want to see more/honor it/slash the characters. Fanwork is born.
3) Commission. Someone loves Character X and pays you to draw a picture of it. You do it.
Reason 2 is the spark of this rant. That and something my art teacher said. Despite the woe, and the work that goes into it, why does one create anything? 'Because they love it.' Short of Reason 3, do you honestly think anyone is going to sit down and work on something for hours on end because they don't care about it? Hell even when working on master copies in Drawing I I'd start to come up with names and stories for the people I was drawing in order to have a better connection to them and make the picture come out better. Few things make me smile more than drawing fanart/master copy/original/real life/anything. I wouldn't do it if I didn't love it. Fanartists/writers wouldn't do it if they didn't love it. It's not hurting anyone. No one is going to claim Aang or Batman or Wolverine are their original characters yet to deny the hard work that goes into the creation of an image of them by saying it's 'not art'? That's low.
That said, I'm off to catch my 2 hours of sleep before class.
((note: While I'm addressing all fanworks I will tend to lapse and address fanart more as it's simply what pertains to me on a greater level))
There are many artists/writers who feel that fanart/fiction is not a valid form of expression. That these works are somehow lesser than those of completely original thought. The idea is that because it is based on a pre-existing premise with established characters, possibly some background information, and at least a bit of plot, that it lacks any creativity whatsoever. That it is not art.
So... what is art? What is creativity? What makes this so much better than this? In terms of the fanartist going pro, aka beginning to work on a series in which they were formerly a fanartist(ex. Karine drawing the Gargoyles comics), how do you classify that?
First off, the definition of 'art'. One of the more debated topics to exist is 'what exactly is art and what isn't', mostly in relation to porn (although I personally think some porn is just another form of art). The truth is there is no solid definition. One person's art is another person's trash, sometimes literally. For the sake of things let's go to a logical source to define something, a dictionary.
art –noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
Yikes, just try to digest that. Once your stomache settles and you've managed to pop an aspirin look back at the first definition. 'the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.' Essentially 'art' is something, sometimes not tangible, that is to be beautiful, appealing, or important. I'll accept that.
So were does creativity come into play on that? The key argument in this fight against fancreations. Simple. Think about what creativity entails. The story of Romeo and Juliet had been told a million times before by the time ol' Will got to it under different names and premises yet it's hailed as some great work. This isn't to say originality is initally dead and I honestly don't believe the whole line about how everything has been done before, but more that it's how you dress it up. How many stories are there about vampires for example? No matter what you do there's definately little originality there. You make them a classic example and it's been done. You make them lacking all the special powers and it's been done. You put them in between and it's been done. You make them fall in love with a human and it's been done. You make a human fall in love with them and it's been done. You make the vampire depressed over 'living' and it's been done.... Yet this is what is called original. No one is going to go up to Anne Rice and call her an unoriginal hack over writing about vampires. Yet write about firebenders and that's a whole other story.
While on the topic, what about comic books(and similar media). Batman still exists yet the original creators are no more. Clearly the people working on it now are fanartists/writers then, right? Batman is an established character with an established history/plot/ect. Yet is anyone going to call Paul Dini a writer of fanfiction? Of course not. But why? Does his getting paid by the company that now own the rights to Batman change it so much that he can be considered original while those under no contract writing for fun are demeaned? Are the works of Bruce Timm so much more original than those drawing for their personal enjoyment?
So why does this predjudice exist? Why can I draw a picture of a 'pretty-boy vampire who can walk in daylight and hates all of humanity except that one special snowflake and drinks only animal blood because of it' and be called 'original' yet a picture of a 'steampunkized JLA' is seen as less. Why do people continue to do fanart if it's viewed in this manner? Well, at least that answer's simple.
Fanart is typically created for 3 reasons.
1) Popularity. Anyone who's ever been a member of DeviantArt KNOWS that fanart is going to get the most views. Because when using the search function 9 times out of 10 the person is typing in what they want to see(normally a character or series) instead of some broader idea. I'll admit the only time I seem to deviate from this pattern is when looking into a new style of art, ex. when starting to work on scratchboard I used DA to see what others had done in scratchboard to get an idea of what I could do.
2) Fandom. You love the series. You want to see more/honor it/slash the characters. Fanwork is born.
3) Commission. Someone loves Character X and pays you to draw a picture of it. You do it.
Reason 2 is the spark of this rant. That and something my art teacher said. Despite the woe, and the work that goes into it, why does one create anything? 'Because they love it.' Short of Reason 3, do you honestly think anyone is going to sit down and work on something for hours on end because they don't care about it? Hell even when working on master copies in Drawing I I'd start to come up with names and stories for the people I was drawing in order to have a better connection to them and make the picture come out better. Few things make me smile more than drawing fanart/master copy/original/real life/anything. I wouldn't do it if I didn't love it. Fanartists/writers wouldn't do it if they didn't love it. It's not hurting anyone. No one is going to claim Aang or Batman or Wolverine are their original characters yet to deny the hard work that goes into the creation of an image of them by saying it's 'not art'? That's low.
That said, I'm off to catch my 2 hours of sleep before class.
Tags: