Darick Robertson doesn't think art is democratic
Another case involving George R.R. Martin, as the artist who illustrated Transmetropolitan and a graphic novel called The Boys apparently agrees with the Game of Thrones novelist about art as a whole:
Wow, that's some pretty communist commentary there, I'll say. Now Martin - and by extension, Robertson - may be alluding to the Hugo awards, which are supposed to be a fan-voted system, and one shouldn't have to point out that the company doesn't belong exclusively to Martin, let alone Robertson. But more maddening is the long-term implications neither one thought of: if art's not a democracy, then by that logic, a painter is not allowed to draw the portraits he/she wants to, and even comic book creators cannot develop their own private ideas. It's like Martin's saying that Edgar Rice Burroughs wasn't allowed to create John Carter and Tarzan, Isaac Asimov wasn't allowed to create Foundation, Mike Baron and Steve Rude aren't allowed to create Nexus, William Tucci's not allowed to create Shi, and Mark Schultz isn't allowed to create Xenozoic Tales. Tsk tsk. Martin and Robertson have no idea how stupid they're becoming.
And I guess Robertson must not think superhero fans have any right to dissent when Spider-Man's marriage is erased, nor when minor characters with potential are turned into cannon fodder in a screed like Identity Crisis. And so on. It's regrettable we have such selfish people running amok. Both Robertson and Martin might want to consider that if there's anything entertainment fans can do to vote, it's with their wallets, and if Martin doesn't shut up already, they may do just that in reaction to all his selfish ranting. Then we'll see how it really ends.
This George has a point. pic.twitter.com/2bn8IM0Dku— Darick Robertson (@DarickR) January 1, 2016Wow, that's some pretty communist commentary there, I'll say. Now Martin - and by extension, Robertson - may be alluding to the Hugo awards, which are supposed to be a fan-voted system, and one shouldn't have to point out that the company doesn't belong exclusively to Martin, let alone Robertson. But more maddening is the long-term implications neither one thought of: if art's not a democracy, then by that logic, a painter is not allowed to draw the portraits he/she wants to, and even comic book creators cannot develop their own private ideas. It's like Martin's saying that Edgar Rice Burroughs wasn't allowed to create John Carter and Tarzan, Isaac Asimov wasn't allowed to create Foundation, Mike Baron and Steve Rude aren't allowed to create Nexus, William Tucci's not allowed to create Shi, and Mark Schultz isn't allowed to create Xenozoic Tales. Tsk tsk. Martin and Robertson have no idea how stupid they're becoming.
And I guess Robertson must not think superhero fans have any right to dissent when Spider-Man's marriage is erased, nor when minor characters with potential are turned into cannon fodder in a screed like Identity Crisis. And so on. It's regrettable we have such selfish people running amok. Both Robertson and Martin might want to consider that if there's anything entertainment fans can do to vote, it's with their wallets, and if Martin doesn't shut up already, they may do just that in reaction to all his selfish ranting. Then we'll see how it really ends.
Labels: indie publishers, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, politics
I don't think you understand what they're saying. Art isn't democratic in the sense that art is made by its creators, not by the audience. Unless you're commissioning someone to create art, you don't get to tell an artist what or how to create. An artist has no obligation to please you.
There is absolutely no political intent to the comment.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:03 AM
I was just alluding to the wider implications Martin/Robertson hadn't thought of. That is, the way they construed their argument made it sound like nobody gets to protest if they feel something's gone wrong. Of course, Martin/Robertson didn't explain what they were talking about, so how am even I to know whether they're talking about what you say, or whether they're talking about stuff like the Hugo awards, which may be the case? Besides, my argument was based on the color of Martin's personal character, and he's said/done some very reprehensible things of recent that are very alienating.
And didn't I just note that I was on the side of the creators when I brought up Baron, Schultz, et al?
Posted by
Avi Green |
1:27 AM