Anonymous #1 1w

Why?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Everything around you exists because real actual people with real actual lives put work into building and designing and assembling a small piece of the world. And artists think that all the money they have was “earned”. It’s great that some people can make something they love and live a good life because of it, but thinking that you owe the world nothing in return is genuinely disgusting. The world around you isn’t abstract it’s real. It was built by people. We DO owe the world something

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You are talking about something entirely different from what I am referring to.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You are unable to relate what I said to what you said because your responded less than two seconds after I did

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You wrote a short paragraph. It doesn’t take long to read. You don’t know anything about me, so do not assume. I am speaking strictly about an artist not being obligated to cater their perspective to anyone. People are free to disagree with the artist’s perspective if it is bad. But no one is obligated to write or create in one specific way because someone told them so.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

If they are getting paid for their art, then yes they are absolutely obligated. If they aren’t, then this situation doesn’t exist

1

Anonymous OP 1w

And my maybe my assumptions on who you are are my art, in which case why am I obligated to not assume?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

People have policed the creation of both paid and unpaid artwork all the time. Open any art history textbook and you will find countless examples of this. This situation has existed, does exist, and will continue to exist. And if making assumptions about me is your art, fine. I am free to think that is dumb. But hey, you got to make art.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Unless you’re paying me to not make assumptions about you, in which case it’s not fair it’s a violation of our agreement

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Ignoring how asinine of a comparison this is, sure. Commissioned art is created with the understanding that the commissioner holds some level of say in the creation or final product of the work. My point is with regard to personal artwork that a creator shares with the world, where people can freely choose to engage with it or not. If that artist makes bad art, people can shit on it. If they don’t, people can praise it. But only the artist themself gets to choose how and why they make it.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

My argument is more abstract, but I just disagree. I think that an artist has some responsibility to create art that they know will make people happy or make a positive impact. If you just create slop because you know people will buy it, I think you’re just kind of a dick

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You have no responsibility or obligation to make anyone “happy” with your art. Your art is allowed to elicit any emotion you want to draw out of your audience. For example, if I was writing a story wherein I want to detail my experiences with the horrors of war, and I want to reflect the terror I felt, I am under no obligation to water down my perspective because it would make my audience uncomfortable. In fact, that might be the goal of my work. You can dislike it, but it is what it is.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I’m not saying it should be illegal, but I do think it’s immoral

0

Anonymous #1 1w

I emphatically disagree with the idea that this is immoral. So much of human history is told through art that has the express purpose of making people uncomfortable. Because that is life. That is truth. The world is a terrible place. People write, draw, and sing about these things because it is their lived experience. To say that these people should pull their punches because of some imaginary obligation that they need to make their audience “happy” is ludicrous.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So much of art has horrible things involved because the artist believed that portraying these things was important and made a positive change in the world. And as I said before, if you genuinely believe your art is making positive impact on other people, then that’s great. But if you are creating art in spite of anyone but yourself, you can go fuck yourself

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Spite motivates all sorts of works of art; doesn’t mean that said art is vapid or not worthwhile. For example, many pieces of political art that point out injustices are created with extremely pointed spite at oppressive people and systems. Whether or not said artwork is “positive” depends entirely on the perspective of the audience. But that is all entirely beside the point. The artist is STILL under no obligation to cater to anyone when making personal work.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Again, if said artist has a bad or harmful perspective, everyone is free to say so and point out why and call it bad. Bad art exists, it always has, it always will. Even moreso now with AI slop. But if someone has a perspective the want to create from, no one can tell them not to do that. You can, however, express why you think their creation is flawed or harmful.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

AI isn’t art to begin with because it is created without human perspective or effort. I am referring to human made works.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

“Make whatever you want however you want” until someone else AI scrapes your life’s work and uses your style to sell slop for money and puts you out of a job

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Then clarify that. It came off the opposite way to me.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Well, it’s been clarified now.

0