pengosolvent

...

anyway
i feel like treating art, performance, so on, as something whose purpose is to be consumed and then judged based on if it was entirely to your liking, and then judged whether or not it has value objectively... kind of misses the point of art and discourages creativity and the importance of individual worth

i used to be a lot more elitist and i hurt a lot of folk around me with that, where i'd really harshly criticize things, painting them in the most objectively negative light i could as possible, as opposed to it being my own opinion (i was like this to flora, which i now help with, but apart from that, one thing i really remember doing this to was ... what was it called... land of the lustruous? the anime about gems (never read the manga, i think i only saw S1 if there are new seasons now?)... also devilman crybaby (i DID read the manga and i really like devilman (manga))... wow i was extremely awful about devilman crybaby... and the spyro remaster trilogy (grew up with the original 3) ... oh man oh boy the list goes on.)

i don't think i valued my opinion as... solely my opinion, at all
as in, i felt "if i express this makes me sad or feel bad, no one will listen to me unless i paint it as objectively wrong, because my feelings don't matter"

it makes me sad to think about
an obvious (to me, now) result of that is... i end up erasing the feelings of others, who may have enjoyed those pieces of media for whatever reasons they enjoyed them

i was judging media's objective worth based on how it made me feel, as opposed to... having a discussion about it
though something i want to note is that there is a difficult line here, wherein... a lot of media is made by companies who are ultimately trying to turn out a profit
i do feel that there is a difference between media made corporately, with a large amount of resources at their disposal that ultimately may not care about the art or message they are sending, and media made by individuals who are attempting to share something they feel they genuinely want to share with others

this is difficult to differentiate or draw a line for at times though. there are individuals who ultimately wish to make money and believe art's purpose is to make money, and do not value self-expression in art, and there are companies (Rare as they may be at times) that attempt to be accountable for their impact and attempt to create what it is they believe is meaningful to share artistically
There is a quote by Michael Eisner, I believe when he had been working for Paramount (before being CEO at Disney)

"We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three.
We cannot expect numerous hits, but if every film has an original and imaginative concept, then we can be confident that something will break through."

(bolding is my own, because i feel this is an important portion that is often missed in discussion i've seen)

i've spent time thinking about this quote
I can't really claim to be an Eisner expert even if I'm read up some on him... i know he's a controversial figure (some see him as helping disney out of a huge slump, others see him as putting disney into another, a lot of mixed bag sort of actions, without even getting into how he treated others on an individual basis), and i don't necessarily have as much context as others may have on him... but i want to take the time to express what this quote, on its own merits, makes me feel and think

right off the bat, he expresses that they (presumably companies and their workers, most likely Paramount in this instance) have no obligation towards making art, history or statements. this is true in that... a company is not forced to do these things

(i would prefer if companies cared about these things, especially "making a statement" because truthfully that could mean a wide variety of things, ranging from "we have no obligation to try to do anything to sway our audience towards any specific belief" to "we have no obligation to take actions and make statements in support of, say, oppressed minorities" (since... in some circles, just accepting that gay or trans or other identity minorities exist is "making a statment" and trying to sway people)

i would prefer if companies would be accountable for the latter there, but that is a discussion that i could write an entire separate post on...)

then eisner continues to say that to make money, it is often important to make history/art/statements.
Eisner links art/history/statements... to... making money.
the... core concept of this message is that while they have no obligation towards more "noble" goals like art, history, or making statements, since they want to make money, they will create art, history, and statements as a result of attempting to make movies that are entertaining to their audience, for money.

at a first glance, for someone who maybe doesn't have a lot of an opinion on how money is used day to day, or someone who actively wants to make a lot of money, this concept maybe doesn't seem bad?

But... when... a company wants to make money as its foremost goal, no matter how much prettiness they put in front, when it comes between money and positive outcomes for society (that don't make money), they're... gonna pick money

Eisner's quote holds a caveat that they only really care to make movies that make art, history, or statements, if this is considered "entertaining" and thus it makes money because audiences want to be entertained and so they will pay to be entertained.
if making art, history, and statements were not financially beneficial or entertaining, this does not feel like it would be a focus of eisner's (solely by the quote alone)

the quote acts as though making art, history, and statements are inevitably linked to being entertaining and inevitably forever linked to making money, but this is not... the case
eisner's quote has linked making money to entertaining others.

i will say that he does tack on "We cannot expect numerous hits, but if every film has an original and imaginative concept, then we can be confident that something will break through." at the end, but his core, core concept is "we want to make money, people want to be entertained, if we make entertaining movies, we will make money." not "originality and innovation is meaningful and we care about these things."

so what's the big deal? if a company maybe doesn't care to make art and just wants to make money, what does that matter? it makes sense to want to make money, right?

well... to a degree, yes
in our current society we need money to survive
it makes sense to want to make money to survive ... but CEOs who wish to forever make higher amounts of money, higher profit... typically have a habit of trying to find ways to increase profit through as little effort and money expended as possible... which often times leads to companies paying workers as little as they can, busting unions from forming, trying to have workers do as much work as they can without paying more, lobbying the government for less regulations, so on

companies don't exist in a vaccuum... companies have contributed to a lot of harm in relation to our world, like climate change, animals going extinct, so on, because they don't want to stop making money, and try not to stop until they are forced to stop by regulations (and even then, there are scandals relating to companies doing underhanded tactics too)

animation and film companies are maybe not as in the limelight in relation to worldly issues like, say, oil spills

but... this sort of "money above all, cut as many corners as you can to save money and make more money" being present in companies that create media can still have negative effects

and truthfully, "we want to make money, people want to be entertained, if we make entertaining [media] , we will make money" is an EXTREMELY EXPLOITABLE concept

it's already been happening! think of all the weird ass youtube kids content there is, where people make media based on a mishmash of content that is popular to the algorithm and thus considered to be "Entertaining" for children
things like the pregnant elsa spiderman videos, generally media for young children that doesn't actually care about what they are showing the children (no care for "art, history, or statements"), just care about exploting the youtube algorithm for views because they can make money on ads

even less intrinsically horrifying content like cocomelon or baby shark doesn't really have a lot of actual "thought" put into it (That i can see) and... that can be felt! it's a time waster to put children in front of the screen... and this is not something that is... good for children

i think about this article all the time

i will be sharing two particular snippets from it

"Q. In your book you emphasize that society wants children to grow up too fast, is this a symptom of how we live?

A. Right now, we certainly live in a culture that is very focused on performance and efficiency, and, with the best of intentions, we often want children to fit into a perfect mold. I think we worry about them falling behind, but we have to [realize] that children’s development takes place over time. Children benefit more from activities that are related to play and discovery, allowing them to discover things for themselves rather than us teaching them a lot of things, especially if they are not ready for it. So, if we put a lot of pressure on them at the beginning, they tend to become anxious because they’re not ready for the things that we’re doing. And they also feel the stress that we feel; we transfer it. It’s important that we reset and respect their natural rhythms."

"Q. In your book, you suggest taking time to talk mindfully with [children]. How does that kind of conversation help children’s development?

A. This is very important. It is a fundamental change in the way children develop and relate to us. We are creating little moments for children that build up over time, and that builds their kindness, their confidence and their creativity. We are inspiring them to think for themselves and recognize that they do indeed have good ideas, that their reflections, their contributions are valuable and that they should continue with them. I think right now we are in a crisis of conversation. Children feel very isolated, sometimes depressed or stressed, and we need those little moments of talking [with them] to be able to break that cycle."

So... A culture that is very focused on performance and efficiency. Companies that want to gain money as efficiently as possible, to the detriment of the workers safety and emotional and mental health and to the detriment of the world... children needing mindful moments, so on. what does this have to do with "we want to make money, people want to be entertained, if we make entertaining [media] , we will make money" being an exploitable concept?

if you haven't realized it already, it's...
if you have to make entertaining media to make money, there are ways to be entertaining (or to influence what it means to BE entertaining) to others that is low effort and harmful.

parents placing children in front of a screen for them to entertain themselves with whatever content is in front of them is... really worrying if that content does not care about the children, but only cares about making money with as low effort as possible

and this isnt even to blame parents necessarily for not knowing better about this, because many parents unfortunately do not have time to both be emotionally available and present and sustain a roof of their heads? many parents struggle with being productive enough in society's eyes to make enough money to maintain their shelter and buy more food
and even if they make enough money, they may be exhausted

my parents struggled with this, sustaining me and my sister's physical safety (food, shelter), that they didn't have enough energy to help with our emotional development
even at home, they'd have work to do sometimes, so i'd be just watching vhs tapes we had

it's... your childhood determines a lot of your internal framework for your thoughts and feelings going forward as an adult.

this is... genuinely all connected.
if a bunch of people decide they only have to do the bare minimum to make money, because it's still entertaining to children, and parents don't have the energy and time to know or understand what it is their children are watching (because child psychology and mental wellbeing is not something that everyone understands!) in part because the parents are being run ragged by other people who are trying to squeeze more money out of them, then "original innovative" whatever that Eisner said is really just a nicety that is tossed to the side as children grow up basically having a large swathe of their emotional development being time-wasters, like watching animated media that doesn't hold many feelings outside of "i exist to entertain you and be consumed"

this is NOT to say that positive meaningful children's media currently does not exist

i have heard bluey is very nuanced and mindful

but i am trying to share that there ARE already longterm harmful effects from the idea of creating media with the main purpose of making money, and that "making art, history, statements" are NOT intrinsically linked to making money and that, to me, eisner's quote is not inspirational nor is it positive

this is not even getting into how some "entertaining" things can be addictive without caring for the one paying money (gambling, certain drugs, some pornographic media)...

but it's just one guy, a few companies, right?

well... no, because these companies made a ton of the media that are considered classics and these companies have had a wide amount of influence over media (and how others consume media) as a whole...
and even if some of this media is enjoyable to me (i do like, say, some of the 80s -90s Disney movies and feel they have value to me) and not everyone involved with that media necessarily shared Eisner's beliefs (i'm sure many of the animators or film makers did want to create art or otherwise sharing meaning and care), this still has played a part in how people view and treat art and artists

lets look again at...
"we want to make money, people want to be entertained, if we make entertaining [media] , we will make money"

lets look at this from a different perspective. not the perspective of a CEO wanting to make money, but of a lay person, a normal person within society, who typically has to be more frugal with their money, because of how expensive it is to maintain a home or apartment and utilities, how expensive it is to need to buy food, how much energy it takes to work a job, how stressful it is to have financial insecurity because of how many companies treat them as expendable (if you're fired, they can find another worker), and also how simultaneously companies try to get their money all the time (intrusive advertisements, ads that use language that is meant to convince you you want to buy their things, etc) and how things may be scams too

the average lay person does not just have physical needs like eating or sleeping. they have emotional needs as well. so this lay person may seek out doing things for their emotional needs, like hanging out with friends, or watching movies and shows, reading comics, so on.

when encountering the summarized Eisner sentiment above (not literally encountering it in words, but through years of being inundated by this sort of culture in media), the sentiment may become something like...
"these movies [or other media] are made to get my money, therefore it should be entertaining to ME and worth MY money. my money holds a lot of value to me, i struggle with it and i DON'T want to waste it."

i don't think that's ... necessarily a "bad take", in the sense that if companies are treating you poorly and your money is a limited resource, expecting more from the companies that want your money makes sense to me

but i feel like... this sort of mentality can get treated as a "fact of life" when people treat capitalism's view of art (and capitalism in general) as inevitable and true

if capitalism views making money as its highest ideal, and views productivity as related to making money... art (which takes efforts and resources) that does not make money will get treated as unreal and dismissable

art will be treated as valuable in relation to whether or not it makes money and felt "worth the money"

but... the thing is... that...
artists do not always make art with money in mind?

artists do not always make art with a consumerist audience in mind?

sometimes art is made with just.. wanting to share an idea, to "make a statement" about something important to the artist

and... now more than ever, individual creators are able to post their work to be seen by others a lot

and these creators are being treated like it is inevitable to hugely consider the audience and monetary value of their work
i recall in about 2013, i made a demo for an RPGmaker game and people kept suggesting i make a kickstarter to get money for it and to give perks to backers

this really felt bad for me at the time
it still feels pretty bad. i don't think those who suggested this did so with negative intentions! but... it... they didn't seem to consider what sort of scope and connections i wanted with that project for myself

their views seemed to be "other projects do this and get money, you should, too."

for years, i would operate using advice on how to curate an audience, how to make money on my art, so on

but... i don't... want to actually do this? i do not actually want to engage with my work in ways that curate to a general audience to get money...?

i DO take commissions sometimes, but... i would rather that be "someone likes my art genuinely, it means something to them, and they're willing to pay for this when i am willing to work" as opposed to... "time to operate like a business and serve my customers whatever sort of thing they're asking for, all the time, to make ends meet."

i don't want to make a lot of money
i want to make enough money to live comfortably so i can work on what it is i want to work on, to share with those who care about what the art means to them but who also try to understand what the art means to me

the mentality that "i paid to be entertained" is... poisonous for smaller individual creators

individual creators do not necessarily feel that they must curate their work to be exactly what you wanted
if you paid a buck to read a comic someone made, their... intent might have been to share it but also they worked hard and would like a small amount in return for access to see it

thus paying the buck is for access to see it, not for access to be entertained personally

and... if something is free, that applies even more so...
dictacting something as objectively bad because it doesn't cater to your specific feelings of what you want out of the media is... ignoring that maybe the artist wants something different from it

recently my partner ash received a comment about how he has RP events on his server, so instead of posting every piece of lore for his webcomic project online, he mainly focuses on connections between RPers and then makes VNs or games or other projects to post/share online at his own pace

this person seemed to feel like... focusing in this way was wrong because the audience that reads the webcomic doesn't really "get" something in return

there was a weird focus on "value", on asking what an audience member Expects in return for participation ... when...

dude its roleplay
it's playing pretend with people and making friends and trying to think about our feelings

it's... playing? people get to play? people get to make characters and try to play? there are rules to the game, but it's like...
if you're an "audience member" who wants or expects some kind of return for your investment that is tangible like money or art or something... thats...

not... what this is? and it does not have to be that way?

you don't need to make money off of playing ???

ash... has no interest in playing by michael eisners idea that "we want to make money therefore we make something entertaining to make money"

ash has no interest in treating his creative works like a product that mainly exists with the goal of making money

in fact, he... has been moving less and less towards things like that?
last year the RP event related to a capitalistic society in the comic and how that damaged a lot of others, and there was a focus on feelings about this and how this manifested and what it meant?

he holds rp events because he wants to interact with others

im thinking about how Mel Blanc actually barely watched the looney tunes cartoons he provided his voice for, but he loved to do radio shows and voice acting and visit children to voice act for them

he enjoyed the work, he enjoyed the connection?

people pressuring artists into turning everything they do into exploitative capitalist patterns or else they are making their art incorrectly or inconveniently...

it strangles creativity and individual worth, and it makes it harder to actually talk about the things you watch or play or whatever

acting like art needs to be someting that must hold to an "objective" criteria of "use" or "value" or "productivity" is... something i personally feel is harmful

defining "value" as something universal and objective instead of personal erases so, so much

it doesn't mean that everything should be accepted uncritically at all, but trying to act like art is "bad" because it is not made in the method you wanted for it, because you cannot understand what others see in that art, because your definition of value is not compatible with the value others find in or express from it...
that's not really thinking critically about media, it's trying to simplify media into a box

a box that also happens to benefit a system that literally doesn't care about feelings or the wellbeing of others, just making money

...i seek media that i can attempt to connect to, to feel something from, to think about... not necessarily to be "entertained"

i don't need to connect to money for that

i do need money enough to survive, but i don't need to treat money like the arbiter of value towards art and connection and play

and i wish... other people could register that, too

i feel scared sometimes, thinking about working on my projects

i've been slowing working on something, and it makes me sad and scared to know that some people will view my work in the lens of profit and "if i engage with this, it must entertain ME specifically"

when... my intent with making work is trying to share my feelings
it is not to validate others, or entertain them
if you engage with something i made and don't like it... thats fine
but i dont have to change it just because you think it would be easier for you to consume if i were to

it's... different from something like, say, accessibility in media to me, because accessibility is allowing someone to be able to engage with your work at all, to help give them more of a choice to engage with your work

there can be intersection, wherein accessibility can help make media make money? such as subtitles being available for a film can allow those hard of hearing to watch it as well and so they can also pay for the media

but... changing something to allow others the choice to connect, is not the same as changing a personal expression (artwork, music, etc) to be more accessible towards making money

the former allows for the intent of the artist to stay intact (at least, from what i have experienced, in most cases attempting to make things accessible can still share the feelings held within a work), the latter does not leave room for the intent the artist had, because what matters most is money and thus convincing other people to give you their money

we really... don't have to accept a system that turns our dreams into products to sell
we don't have to accept a system that turns people into weird marketing critics, making it harder to just... share and connect

i think about when i was a kid and looking at webcomics, and i loved reading them
i loved finding weird little comics that were just personal stories people wanted to tell

they weren't selling me something
they wanted to tell a story

and like... sure, if i didn't like the story, that's that
but it didn't mean that they made something bad

it didn't mean i had to talk like it was objectively bad or dismiss that others liked it, and it DEFINITELY didn't mean that i had to treat the work like it's bad because it didn't fulfill exactly what it was that i wanted to consume at the time

i can find more nuanced words to actually talk about why i like or dislike something, without it being a failure of the work itself

like... idk i guess i'll talk about devilman crybaby a bit
i'll try to avoid spoilers in case people want to read devilman and/or watch devilman crybaby

i really like the devilman manga... it meant a lot to me
i first read it when i was 14 (and i'm not sure if that's ... necessarily good, considering how violent the work is, but by this point i had already been exposed to a lot of violent media in general either way...)

i felt a lot from the connection ryo and akira had
i felt like i could genuinely feel and understand what their care was like and why
i felt like i could grasp the emotional throughline of devilman, which was admittedly kind of rare for me
it was hard for me to understand emotions a lot of the time

the ending really affected me

... i really like masaaki yuasa's works typically, so when i heard he was part of devilman crybaby i was really excited

but... when i actually watched it... the dynamics of the characters had changed a lot

the focus of devilman crybaby had... shifted from the original. there were still reccurring and similar themes from the original, but, one thing that especially had changed was akira and ryo's characterization

and it... it genuinely hurt me to see that
i was in a lot of pain
so i cut at the anime a lot, i talked about it really negatively and harshly, and upset as if it were just "bad"

but... it isn't wrong for the focus to have changed in the way it did? it still holds meaning, just... different meaning
it tries to share in ways that i didn't feel comfortable engaging with (it is much more sexual than the original manga was, i believe) and... that's... fine

i can talk about those aspects as stemming from how it made me feel
that i did not like that, from a personal stance
not that it is objectively wrong for it to have shared things in this way

to quote wikipedia on devilman:
"Nagai designed Devilman as an anti-war work; the fusion of humans and demons is an analogy for the draft, and [character]'s violent death symbolizes the death of peace. "There is no justice in war, any war," wrote Nagai, "nor is there any justification for human beings killing one another. Devilman carries a message of warning, as we step toward a bright future."

war can be horrible, there are horrible things that occur in war
i can see devilman crybaby, in adapting devilman to the modern era, making highly deliberate choices with what of the horrors they show and why specifically because of how the original devilman expressed so much of itself and its message through horrors as well

whether or not i agree in how they chose to do this, whether i believe some choices in how they wrote things hurt me or were not very thought out or whatever... it doesn't mean that others cannot find value in this? and this can co-exist?

and i genuinely wish i could have seen that and felt that earlier

because if i treated media this way, it meant i accepted that my own work would be and could be (and has been) treated this way.. and that hurts

it hurts when the intent isnt considered or respected
when people just want to use my characters however

it's rampant in fandom spaces... stories and art and characters get treated like they just exist from thin air and you can do whatever with them

and that creators just have to accept this

i'm not saying every creator has an issue with how people treat their work, but i wish that if people did feel pain over how their work is treated, that this could be treated as meaningful more commonly and not like someone being prissy or overly sensitive

you aren't... entitled to small creator's feelings and works?
enjoying what they make, does not mean that you are allowed to do whatever you want with them, nor that you need be entitled to owning what they have made, to seeing as much as possible, so on

(like i said earlier, i do feel there is a difference in relation to large corporations making media to sell, but even then that's hard to work with since sometimes the work of creators get used in this as well (i am thinking about how the 2012 lorax probably would have really distressed dr seuss)
people who probably love art ultimately still do work for these companies and can also place a lot of their feelings in the work, even if the work ends up being made to make money...)

i think about this comment i got from someone once, when i replied to an anon ask getting upset with me, talking to me like i was stealing people's money by having a patreon as a tip jar but not posting on it
i replied to this person with how they made me feel
someone commented on this with something like i didn't have to write so much, that i should just have a diary and just reply straight to the point

this was incredible to me and still is
i still think about it

my belief is that person had followed me on tumblr for art (when i did not really post much art at the time anyway) and was upset that they instead saw (and chose to read) an ask with my reply

so this person was... upset that i chose to use my blog to blog
definition from google: "a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style."

i'm... not a brand i'm a guy and i'm writing thoughts and feelings
the point to me IS to talk about how i feel

and someone came to my blog to say "talk less"!

they came to my space, chose to read a long post, and then chose to put energy to say "talk less"

why? what do i owe them, to choose to talk less in my personal space? why do they think that it makes sense for them to talk to me like i owe to them to change my behavior
when... if they do not like to see my feelings, they do not have to follow me?
why do they act like it is necessary for an artist to bend to what they prefer to see?

i do not want to cater my existence to people who only want the parts of me that make them feel good and that they can use

i do not want to cater my art and feelings to a system that doesn't care about how i feel and only cares about squeezing money out of me

so i won't
i try to avoid doing that as much as i can

i can't avoid very well needing money to pay rent, but i can refuse to treat all of my personal art as products

and i can try to talk about this idea, to share it... that others dont have to accept this either

i dunno
it's meaningful to make art for you, to share what you want to share and be open to connecting to other people as people and not as a dynamic of producer and consumer

children shouldnt have to be exposed to media that only sees them as a way to make money, and not as individuals who are learning about the world and growing

art and life do not have to be transactional