#art making

[fixing-bad-posts]

Putting my opinions upfront: no AI, free us, no ai. someone is trying to straight-up lie and say that your stuff is theirs when someone signs their own name on ai art. Credit should be given for modified works, a requirement. original art should be a requirement, and no ai. #art

[rthwrms]

affirmations (for your censor)

free zine up as a pdf on my ko-fi shop :-)

[victusinveritas]

Andy Weir's absolute dogshit take on Star Trek in case you've not seen it floating around other forms of social media.

Merrr, I want everyone to go see my movie including fascists, artists should stick to art, merrrrr. -Andy Weir. All art is political.

But wait...

Andy Weir walks back criticism of recent Star Trek.

[serpent-of-hope]

There's something I want to unpack about Timothee Chalamet's recent divisive comments about Ballet and Opera. I mean, yeah, as someone who priotizes regular attendance of these performances (and leverages every ticket initiative I can in order to make it happen) fuck that guy! But there's something under the surface of that comment that I want to poke with a stick.

From the brief clip, it sounds to me like what underlays and is driving his comment is a statement about where he positions value in the practice of art making, which is a good thing for any artist to reflect on. From his comments, it sounds like Chalamet values popularity of the final project above all. He wants to be in movies because objectively more people watch movies. He wants to be in big-budget, blockbuster movies because big, blockbuster movies reach a bigger audience. It's almost a capitalistic argument - value is defined as maximum engagement and maximum reach. No art form is immune this. Some authors' ultimate goal is the best-seller's list and the mile-long signing line. Some musicians are in it for the screaming fans and the tour bus.

Where the tension lies, between his expression of how he values opportunities in context of his desires and the response of passionate dancers/singers/theatre goers is the understanding that while popularity is the...popular way to value art, it is not the exclusive way. Some practitioners are actively content with carving out their own little space and producing work for the dedicated group of passionate weirdos in it (I'd argue that SFF as a genre has historically functioned in this passionate-but-insular mode, as well as comics, indie films and publishing houses, modern art, and yes, ballet and opera). Others are in love with the medium itself, with the practice of making art and the friction of its materiality - any audience is just a side-effect (wanted or unwanted) of the act of creating.

I'd argue that these approaches to craft all have their benefits and drawbacks. Pure love of the craft tends to be the most resilient approach to the work, but rarely results in wealth or accolade until paired with a business mindset. Artistic niches are passionate and (as proven by the response of the Ballet and Opera communities) will fight for and organize around the works and mediums they love, but can also sweep-up creators in volatile infighting. Pursuit of fame can result in, well, fame - as it has done for Chalamet - but leaves your practice and self-esteem at the whims of a mercurial and unstable climate.

So tell me, why do you make art and who do you make it for?

[arttwink]

recommended listening

[colleendoran]

This is Your Brain on Chronic Illness

The Silver Metal Struggle

[jooliefiveash]

Talked to a bunch of elementary school kids a couple weeks ago and realized that the kids are doing alright!

(Go check out my new book if you got the chance!!)