Respectfully, more than a decade ago when I was doing hard core time as a creator rights advocate, I warned & warned & warned people that tech looks at the arts as content they should have free access to to monetize, and not as a human accomplishment or experience.
I got absolutely hammered for my stance, and I finally left advocacy work exhausted. And those of us who raised the issue were relentlessly trolled by tech dudes. The devaluation of art is the devaluation of humanity. Monetizing art without returning value to the artist.
What is happening with Twitter is ultimate proof of the warnings of artists: there is NO value to ANYTHING these tech dudes do here that they didn't skim off the people who willingly create here. WE are the value here. Our CONTENT and participation is the ONLY asset.
We are willing to add value when we get value back, which is why we are here for now. But many tech dudes just want to take. They do not respect the human beings who create the content or participate in the platform. But there is no value whatsoever without us.
Social media tech is designed to mold human beings to tech's profit goal needs. That's it. If it is not serving you, the human being, if it creates stress, doesn't return to you the level of connection you are looking for, delivers misinformation, it's harmful & it's time to go.
I wrote this over twelve years ago.
You, your life, your interaction, what you create is not Monetized Content. If a platform does not respect you, the creator, the human being, that platform has no business acting as SOCIAL media. Give us value for our attention and creation, or we leave. Simple.
End tweet storm. Good night.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: I remember getting a bit peevish whenever Neil Gaiman would write "Make Good Art".
Not everyone has the same art making experiences, environment, skills, opportunities, and innate abilities.
They just don't. There's nothing equitable about material success in art. There is only the reality that everyone is entitled to make art. You can make a picture, hum a tune, think up a story. You can do that. You can even do that without tools you need to buy
However, the end result of the art making is going to differ for everyone. And back when I was really poor and very resentful that I couldn't take the time to make the art I wanted to make with the qualities I wanted to make it, "Make Good Art" seemed glib.
But it's the truth.
I'm seeing another one of those threads bemoaning the fact that creative people can only excel in the arts if they come from money: here is a friendly reminder that most people of my generation and back in the comics biz did not come from money, were actually poor/marginalized -
and back in the day, comics was not a glamorous profession, but the lowest of the low in the arts, poor paying, no respect, you only went into comics if you were absolutely obsessed, and unlikely to make more than $30,000 a year at best. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
I got one of those "But you had it easy!" comments here on twitter awhile back, and I wanted to jet propel myself through my computer screen, but working in comics has given me endless reserves of self control at dealing with being disappointed by people.
One of the things that is really hard for people trying to get into comics to understand is you don't just get to draw what you want to draw. You have to draw what the story requires. Things you don't like. Things you're not good at.
Your portfolio may show lots of cute pinups of hot chicks, but you are going to get a story with a car chase in it, tons of gritty city backgrounds, and a crowd scene in a restaurant, and the fun's over, man.
I think this is why so many people burn out. The technical requirements of the job mean you will spend endless hours drawing things at which you do not excel. You have to love drawing and storytelling for it's own sake. And some people really don't.
Arguably, the most famous of all the Pre-Raphaelite painters was Dante Gabriel Rossetti (English 1828-1882,) painter, poet and guy known for digging up his dead wife to retrieve poems he buried with her when she died. Like you do.
Rossetti's sensual, lush, dreamy paintings of iconic women are synonymous with Pre-Raphaelitism now, but they strayed from the original intent of the movement, which started out as return to realism and fidelity to ideas and intent.
This is how Rossetti started out: Ecce Ancilla Domini, 1845. This almost ascetic piece is much closer to the original Pre-Raphaelite ideal than the place Rossetti ended up, which is where most of the movement ended up: medievalism, romanticism, symbolism.
My drawing board today. Realizing with a shallow thrill I'm closing in on 40,000 followers. That count isn't just about ego, my beloveds...I want you to hear all about my work. And art I love. Thanks for being here.
Everyone always asks about the lamp. It is this lamp. amzn.to/31i8cFy
For thems that asked, the marker tray at the left of my drawing board is handy dandy and can be had here: amzn.to/3Ie3SYq
One of the things a lot of people don't get about process is the paradoxical nature of time cost. It can actually be FASTER to do a full page in full color by yourself than it is for a team of three artists to do full pencils, then inks, then color in mainstream style.
I say this to people and they act like I'm crazy, they think it is easier to do pencils on a book for Marvel than it is to do a full color page of a comic all by myself. But it isn't. Digital color is a big reason why line art is less complex these days.
It's one reason why I try to color my own art as much as possible. I will spend less time on the color than I will doing a lot of ink line rendering. It's a big reason why I haven't worked with an inker in decades. Time cost on tight pencils is crazy high.