Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
I don't think art should be designed to sell.
What if an individual or group wishes to spread widely an idea or concept with the purpose that the masses may become familiar with the subject or material and eventually become to appareciate it? Should it not be designed to sell?
Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
What if an individual or group wishes to spread widely an idea or concept with the purpose that the masses may become familiar with the subject or material and eventually become to appareciate it? Should it not be designed to sell?
But should it also be considered art? Art being something very emotional and expressive and not something made in the financial or economical state of mind.
Originally posted by natashia
in next to all cases i dont think it does
but im an artist
when i draw something i want others to like it and want it
and when you want to buy something ive created it shows that you really like it and apreciate it
i stand by what i said.
i really wasn't being scarcastic.
it really depressed me
But when you draw something, before you even pick up the pencil or brush, before the feeling of drawing anything strikes you, do you plan on making something that will make you big bucks? No. You draw it, critique it, because satisfied with it as something you enjoy that you created, and then you go and see if others like it. You didn't draw to have others like it, you drew it because you yourself wanted to like it.
Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
But should it also be considered art? Art being something very emotional and expressive and not something made in the financial or economical state of mind.
Why wouldn't it be considred art, simply because it is on a mainstream level?
I didn't say it would be done in those state of minds, as I said it would be done to to spread widely an idea or concept with the purpose that the masses may become familiar with it. Profit can simply be placed back into other similar organizations, individuals, or groups.
Also, simply because someone happens to be drawing for a comic that is intended to sell does not disqualify it from being considered art. I've known those who happen to be incredibly passionate for the characters and worlds before the aspect of profit ever enters their minds. As for those who may be currently drawing these comics, while some may parhaps be profit orientated others carry genuine emotion and passion. Why so? Some develop love for characters over the years and as they become successful can demand to draw those same characters and in effect illustrating those emotions and passion just as a common independent artist.
Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
Why wouldn't it be considred art, simply because it is on a mainstream level?I didn't say it would be done in those state of minds, as I said it would be done to to spread widely an idea or concept with the purpose that the masses may become familiar with it. Profit can simply be placed back into other similar organizations, individuals, or groups.
Also, simply because someone happens to be drawing for a comic that is intended to sell does not disqualify it from being considered art. I've known those who happen to be incredibly passionate for the characters and worlds before the aspect of profit ever enters their minds. As for those who may be currently drawing these comics, while some may parhaps be profit orientated others carry genuine emotion and passion. Why so? Some develop love for characters over the years and as they become successful can demand to draw those same characters and in effect illustrating those emotions and passion just as a common independent artist.
The character in the cartoon or comic is that artist's creation and art, yes. But even though the artists are very passionate about what they draw, the economic minds behind the cartoon even being on the air are not. The whole concept of a cartoon is not art. The concept of a comic strip on the funny pages of the newspaper is not art, it's all for profit.
Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
The character in the cartoon or comic is that artist's creation and art, yes. But even though the artists are very passionate about what they draw, the economic minds behind the cartoon even being on the air are not. The whole concept of a cartoon is not art. The concept of a comic strip on the funny pages of the newspaper is not art, it's all for profit.
I wasn't speaking about cartoons, 😉 It's not to be argued that today's toons are not art, we all know it. However, you must be aware that even today there are still independent animation that is powered by art.
Even if the higher power behind the company is economic minded, that is not to say the drawings within selected comic book issues or series is not suported by passion and emotion just as any other art. In addition, newspaper strips and comic books today are nearly entirely different worlds and should not be compared.
Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
I wasn't speaking about cartoons, 😉 It's not to be argued that today's toons are not art, we all know it. However, you must be aware that even today there are still independent animation that is powered by art.Even if the higher power behind the company is economic minded, that is not to say the drawings within selected comic book issues or series is not suported by passion and emotion just as any other art. In addition, newspaper strips and comic books today are nearly entirely different worlds and should not be compared.