True. But the point, as far as I can see, is that the idea that making a living as an artists is somehow wrong is discouraging to artists and art. I have seen too many young artists give up what could have been fulfilling careers over this idea which is parroted by cloistered professors in art schools all over the country.
If Watterson can use his fame as a successful commercial artist to repeat this stupid, destructive idea I don't see why David Willis, or anyone else who knows better, shouldn't call him on it.
Right. And the result is something that is fun (or instructive or delightful or beautiful or meaningful or whatever) and - AND - profitable.
The idea that artistic integrity and making a living are somehow at odds with each other is just that, an idea. It's a romanticized ideal of the artist as the misunderstood genius who isn't at home in the world, like Van Gogh. History is full of artists that did very well for themselves and produced great work.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that when artists compete with each other for the public's adulation and dollars art flourishes. Look to the art museums of Europe and America for proof.
To some degree, there was similar views when I started blogging.
The purists said that blogs that commercialize their traffic were bad - but how else could we make this a lasting venture without actually deriving income to be able to pay writers?
Watterson expressed an attitude that was very prevalent among many of the college professors who taught me and my fellow students. Doing work for monetary gain is always bad, they would repeat and the students took it to heart. Never mind, as Mr Willis points out, that history is full of artists that produced work of great genius and made a good living while they did it. Of course our professors all had tenure with handsome salaries and benefits, so why on earth would they feel the need to sell anything?
The result, as I saw through the years, was dilettantism. If you couldn't land a job teaching, or even if you did, you wound up doing work you hated to pay the bills and painting (never to sell!) when you could find the time. Almost all of the people I knew who took this rout became discouraged and gave up after a few years. Pretty mean spirited advise, if you ask me.
Let me rephrase that. The speech and comic are self-righteous and directed at college students who may be naive. It suggests that there's something unseemly or inadequate about working for profit.
And Watterson is essentially telling students "follow your dreams." That' nice, but it should come with the addendum, "...but take into account the likelihood that you can practically achieve those dreams and prepare accordingly."
I was going to say you make up for the lack of a gun by carrying TWO jugs... one for whiskey, one for mint juleps at the horse races (what's this I hear about everyone in Kentucky wearing a derby?)
NoNoNoNoNo! This is a HEAD in a JAR costume... a JAR in a HEAD would involve one of those soldiers who call themselves "Jarheads" OR Jar-Jar Binks. Although Jar-Jar-in-a-Jar would be not scary as long as you NEVER open it.
I was not around when Andrew Jackson made his observations. What a Tennessean says about Kentuckians is already suspect. I have never owned a gun. However, I'm a pretty good shot with someone else's gun.
Photography is like gardening. Skill comes from lots of practice. Part of that is taking a LOT of pictures or planting LOTS of plants, and then getting rid of any of them that aren't optimal. And sometimes you get lucky.
If Watterson can use his fame as a successful commercial artist to repeat this stupid, destructive idea I don't see why David Willis, or anyone else who knows better, shouldn't call him on it.
The idea that artistic integrity and making a living are somehow at odds with each other is just that, an idea. It's a romanticized ideal of the artist as the misunderstood genius who isn't at home in the world, like Van Gogh. History is full of artists that did very well for themselves and produced great work.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that when artists compete with each other for the public's adulation and dollars art flourishes. Look to the art museums of Europe and America for proof.
The purists said that blogs that commercialize their traffic were bad - but how else could we make this a lasting venture without actually deriving income to be able to pay writers?
The result, as I saw through the years, was dilettantism. If you couldn't land a job teaching, or even if you did, you wound up doing work you hated to pay the bills and painting (never to sell!) when you could find the time. Almost all of the people I knew who took this rout became discouraged and gave up after a few years. Pretty mean spirited advise, if you ask me.
And Watterson is essentially telling students "follow your dreams." That' nice, but it should come with the addendum, "...but take into account the likelihood that you can practically achieve those dreams and prepare accordingly."