6 ms·
It's still notable that Jim Davis has that level of chill about it. Someone with a mercenary capitalist attitude toward their work can be just as much a control
by KerrAvon 1y ago
It's still notable that Jim Davis has that level of chill about it. Someone with a mercenary capitalist attitude toward their work can be just as much a control freak as Bill Watterson. (Not being judgmental; Watterson's position is completely valid too.)
- cogman10 1y agoIt honestly seems a little silly to worry about the purity of the intent of an artist. That Davis did it for the money is just "meh". Most people work for money.
- formerly_proven 1y agowe at hacker news work for first principles instead
- standyro 1y agoI wish there was a hacker news minus hacker news
- wlonkly 1y agoI can give you hacker news minus hackers?
- nunez 1y agoreddit.com/r/technology
- B1FF_PSUVM 1y agohttp://n-gate.com/hackernews/ http://n-gate.com/hackernews/ , but it sleeps
- the_af 1y agoI don't think the concern is that Davis "did it for the money", and that's not a fair representation of why some of us mock Jim Davis. I don't think anybody is arguing comic authors shouldn't make money out of their work. The concern is that Garfield is the product of conscious market research and not whatever we imagine a comic artist goes through when creating their comics. You can dismiss this as some ridiculous search for "purity", but wouldn't you say most people imagine Watterson, Schultz, etc. went through a process more or less "I liked these other cartoons, and wouldn't it be cool to make something about <idea>/<childhood memories>/<something that inspired me>/<something that worries me>" vs "hey, let's make money, what kind of character would make me the most money?". Davis is not the only one, of course.
- weard_beard 1y agoArt without money is madness. Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time. 99% of everything commercially produced is somewhere between these and, if made by a person, part of a cannon, a body of work that grows and changes as the person does. Just because an artist invites us into their mind does not mean we don’t owe them the respect we’d give a stranger. At least that’s how I look at it.
- the_af 1y agoWe don't owe Jim Davis any kind of respect as an artist. He must earn it. In the scale you're describing, he leans heavily towards making money and away from the art part. It's OK to feel scorn for this. It's also OK to respect it, but that's not me. > Art without money is madness This isn't what my comment was about, but I cannot refrain from answering: art can exist perfectly well without money. I'd say the vast majority of art humanity produces is not related to money at all. It is definitely not madness without money. > Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time. Sadly, I don't think the former is true, and I don't think the latter matters enough.
- weard_beard 1y ago