>“It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audience. They would be the artist. It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need.”Art thats unloved by the masses is mere masturbation made for the artist.Moore is full of shit. And he knows it.Imagine ordering at a restaurant and afterwards the chef just decides to make you "what you need" and it's an unpalatable dish you despise. Who would go to this restaurant? The chef would soon be out of a job.If you can't get your message through while giving the audience the entertainment they crave, you aren't fit to call yourself an artist/writer
>“It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed...
doesn’t he just make capeshit?
Art isn't your babysitter user
it's just arrogance. he is immensely arrogant and has been for decades. he thinks he is better than the industry, than his publishers, than his audience. he has always thought this and is feted and fluffed in a way that encourages it.he writes children's media
Being “loved by the masses” has nothing to do with art. Finnegan’s Wake doesn’t stop being good for intelligent readers just because OP is a midwit.
>>168989334The art is there, being shown to the consumer, because the artist,presumably, wants to make money. Do you think the networks just wanted to hand out free shows to simpletons like yourself? The menu is the channels/websites/etc. The shows advertise what they contain (comedy, action, drama, etc.) The creators want money, the customer wants something in return, you absolute dipshit. Hey, if you want to be some autist on Deviantart giving out your sonic hentai to everyone freely and pretending it's high art go for it though.
Your only retort is a retarded analogy that doesn't apply to the argument. kys my main man
>>168989202is this the same argument you used when your mom told you to eat your veggies? but you're an adult now and if you want to get mcnuggets and milkshakes then no one can stop you.
>>168989367namedropping finnegans wake like you just started browsing /lit/ last month makes you the midwit. >What clashes here of wills gen wonts, oystrygods gaggin fishy-gods! Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! Kóax Kóax Kóax! Ualualso this is garbage lmaoUalu Ualu! Quaouauh!
>>168989202>jobEither you're an artist, and thus shouldn't get paid any money, or you're a worker and thus you should deliver what you've been asked if you want to get paid.Simple as.That's not to say that some people take advantage of the loophole of people just throwing away money at them.
>>168989408Imagine you owned a restaurant. You hire staff, order ingredients, etc. You open it up for business. Customers come in, they order food from you. Let's say half the people who order tell you something to the effect of "It doesn't taste right, I don't like it." Well sure, you can insist that the feedback isn't to your standard, you could be a sperg about it and scream back at them, but if you ignore this many people telling you something is wrong you can expect to your restaurant to fail within the month.Could an user be more specific about what's "fun" or "entertaining", yes and they probably should. But if everyone tells you your shit is awful and unfun, I'd try to find out why instead of being an uppity fuckhead with your head in the sand.
>>168989455Being filtered is not an argument.
>>168989228NOOOOOOOOOOOO THEY'RE GRAPHIC NOVELS IT'S BOTH LITERATURE AND ART!!!!!!!!!!!
>>168989202alan is based
>>168989400Plucked a nerve I see. Whatever, if you're so desperate to flaunt your own media illiteracy in these shitty off-topic posts, be my guest.
>>168989448>is this the same argument you used when your mom told you to eat your veggies?If they're not buying local organic those veggies are covered in endochrine disrupting chemicals that make kids troon out so, yes they may have been wrong on that one.
>>168989354he is better, he has principles and a spine
>>168989726>No actual rebuttal.
>>168989746>endochrine disrupting chemicalsso what does this have to do with comic book movies?
>>168989810>But the media is already made.You can say that about the first episode, but once it airs your show receives feedback. You could continue without listening, but then you'd be like a chef that can't handle customer criticism, a hack. As when you watch a new show, when you order the burger from the chef, you don't ACTUALLY know what you're going to get until it reaches the table. The burger could be undercooked, overcooked, covered in hair, etc. The show could be dry, full of filler, and any number of problems. Either way, you give feedback AFTER consuming the material, whether it was made by a chef or an artist.The analogy is fine, you're just an incredulous autist. If it were any more fitting, it wouldn't be an analogy anymore.
>>168989726Yeah, we get it. You don't know how analogies work.
>>168989772his only principle is that he is a pedophile
>>168989400This is what happens when the only media you consume is television/film
I stopped liking Moore as a person (not as an artist) when he said Joker didn't rape Barbara Gordon, even though when Batman asked Joker's hookers, they said it was weird he didn't show up to them immediately after leaving jail. He is also shitting on the people likening Rorschach since he is the most popular character. The dude is a fucking diva.
>>168990565>He is also shitting on the people likening RorschachNot really cause they like him, but he thinks that there's fanboys that took the wrong message from. Don't be a self aggrandizing hypocrite.
>>168990593>he thinks that there's fanboys that took the wrong message fromMaybe he should have written better.
>>168989202He's right. We would have never gotten his best works if he just churned out what people expected.It's just entertainment companies are so bad nowadays that most people reading this quote probably think he's justifying spiteful products like The Last Jedi.
>>168989772He still writes picture books.
>>168989202He's half right, it's not up to the artist to cater to people's demands, but as soon as the art is released it's up to people to interpret it how they see fit. The Artist has no control over that, nor should they.
>>168989202Do you think you're the first retard to use the chef/artist comparison?Kys zoomer
>>168989202>Imagine ordering at a restaurant and afterwards the chef just decides to make you "what you need" and it's an unpalatable dish you despise.Not to defend Moore, but he's not exactly wrong. Books, music, paintings, comics etc etc aren't food. Certain food can be an acquired taste. The problem however is that you can't eat a meal after you've eaten it to find new. The chef has to make a whole new meal which will have variations. You can listen to the same song or read the same book over and over again to gain deeper insight into it.If you want a steak done rare, you're supposed to get a steak done rare. If you want art to conform to exactly what you want, then it's predictable, and while there are worse things for art to be, predictable isn't good.
>>168991557A great dish does not communicate a profound understanding of human nature and conflict. Nor has it explored complex ideas.You are still 19 years old. Kys
>>168990593>writes a character who makes poignant, if extreme, observations about the world>gets upset because these observations resonate with peopleYou can't present a worldview and insist that if people don't see it exactly from your point of view that they're wrong. This is why I don't take his quote in the OP seriously. Art can be used to get people to think about the world and their place in it, but those who most often claim to be doing so don't want you to just think, they want you to be swayed and to agree with them
>>168989202You present a bullshit dichotomy. Not giving the audience what they want does not equate to making art everyone (or even most) would hate. Rather it's about giving them art that is creative and challenging and not shallow wish-fulfilment.
>Invite mistress to his house to have threesomes with his wife>Wife leaves with the mistress and kids>NOOO THE CAPESHITERINOMoore is a funny guy
>It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audienceLmao, he reasons like an artist (i.e. a liberal who can only think in terms of feeling and emotion). It does not follow that the audience would become the artists, if only they could somehow figure out what they want. There are a million reasons why they wouldn't "become the artist". Laziness. Preoccupation with working to pay the bills and the persistent fatigue from the 9-5. Simply not enjoying making art. Skill gap (e.g. actually having to learn to draw before you can create a comic). Lack of resources, money, or opportunity. Yadda yadda yadda. This guy always likes to spout simplistic reasoning with absolute confidence and the hope that his long hair and weird rings he's always deliberately posing to show off in photographs and dumb droopy eyes will convince people he's right. And to be fair it usually works.
>>168991816>Books, music, paintings, comics etc etc aren't food. I see special education DOES work. You figured that out at least.otherwise>the analogy about things we consume isn't perfect because you're comparing things that are made and consumed with another thing that's made and consumed!Analogies aren't supposed to be spot on 100.00%, if they were they wouldn't be analogies anymore. The more you drivel on, the dumber you sound. Stop wasting our time.
>>168989202if you are making the argument that the audience is correct, then i counter with to Dan Brown, Christopher Paolini, J.K Rowling, and Stephanie Meyer and E.L. James.
>>168992614I didn't realize food was entertainment. Analogies will never map 100%, but you should at least attempt to make a decent one. If you'd used damn near anything else that wasn't a good analogy. If we're going to stick with this stupid fucking food shit though, the chef at the orphanage isn't there to make what the orphans want. The chef is there to make what they NEED. A good and nutritious meal
>>168989202You're back again after getting BTFO so many times, huh?You can make art the audience doesn't KNOW they like until they see it. You're projecting your own dislike of his art on his statement which is not necessarily true.
>>168992417This isn't your blog faggot
its a pretty pretentious sounding quote, but the concept has some truth to it.Before cars and trains, everyone would have just wanted faster horses because they didn't even have the alternative option, they literally couldn't fathom it. In sort of the same way, audiences can only drum up their desires from things they have already experienced
>>168989513Do you not see what happens to series when they "listen" to the audience?They quickly turn to shitand you analogy does not workinstead think about the health benifits of the foodIf the guy makes super sugay fat laden food then it will of course sellbut the healthy option is preferable
>>168994442The audience has control over what gets made and continues. You're stupid if you can't realize this.
>>168995240There are plenty of excellent series that are not successful at all whilst most of the really suscessful shows are normie garbage.And the audience does not have control of what gets made.
>>168993404You don't know how your food will be until it hits the table.
>>168995398In comics, readers' letters were able to let the books' editors know what they did and didn't like, and that's been a thing forever, the internet age and social media have allowed the audience to have direct contact with the people who actually make comics and cartoons. The people making them are more aware than ever before what the audience do and don't want, and if they choose to do things they know the audience doesn't want, and get cancelled, they got what they deserved.They're also well aware they're employees creating a product, not creating "art" with any actual merit at all.
>>168995560>They're also well aware they're employees creating a product, not creating "art" with any actual merit at all.Then you have no understanding of Where Moore is coming from and should stick to normie garbage
>>168995665>normie garbage.Yes stupid. The normie shit appeals to a larger consumer base, thus they controlled what the artist made. The artist that didn't appeal to the audiences "normie" tastes don't get the steady paycheck.
>>168989202>you aren't fit to call yourself an artist/writerThey're just call activists/propagandists.
>>168989202art isn't food, fatass
>>168996130Art is a product made to sell
>>168995743Noting to argue aboutYou made a statement that pretty much goes against everything that Moore believes in when it comes to his comic work then stood back ilke you said soemthing profound.
>>168996209>normie garbage.Yes stupid. The normie shit appeals to a larger consumer base, thus they controlled what the artist made. The artist that didn't appeal to the audiences "normie" tastes don't get the steady paycheck
>>168996205no it isn't, art being sold doesn't mean it is made to sellyou have a rather small way of thinking
>>168989367>just because OP is a midwit.Nobody who isn't a "midwit" would ever feel the need to use the term "midwit"
It is if they want to make money. If not I agree. Except about the “what they need” part.
>>168989687he also writes novels
>>168994252This was Hollywood and the networks' "valid", above-board reason for killing westerns despite them still being immensely popular and profitable and likely to remain so. People didn't know what they really wanted and would never know unless the networks "took chances" and discovered it for them. The audience would just want better westerns forever. In reality, it was more complicated than that and has to do with demographics and what the studios see as their relationship to the audience.
>>168996751classic midwit projection lol
>>168996209>He's seething so bad he has to make an appeal to authority against a perfectly rational argumentLmao.
>>168989202So we all agree his Swamp Thing run was the best comic run of the 1980s, right?
>>168989202>Art thats unloved by the masses is mere masturbation made for the artist.What's "outsider art" or "raw art" for 500 points?>Food analogy.Wrong board >>>/ck/ is that way
>>168989202I honestly think he's right but it does help his case that he's a comic book artist who eternally seethes that Stan Lee is more successful and popular than him.
>>168997148Ask yourself in all the years of the internet and bantering with retards did a word like that never seem to be needed before. Answer: it was never important for internet communities to identify the pseuds in their midst without those pseuds realizing they're being called-out. The purpose of the term "midwit" is to get you to use it so you'll out yourself as a pseud who needs to prove he's smarter than other "smart people".
>>168997695Words, words, words. All for a whole lot of coping on your end.
>>168997734>Words, words, wordssays the "really smart" guy.
>>168996973Is he what he's known for?
>>168989202>Imagine ordering at a restaurant and afterwards the chef just decides to make you "what you need" and it's an unpalatable dish you despiseWith this mangled metaphor you've already proved yourself a retard.
>>168997763Never said I was really smart. You're the one coping about midwit while using psued.
>>168997918>Never said I was really smart.lol
Why would I care about the opinions of a guy who writes comic books?
>>168989202You were completely correct until you associated giving the audience what the want with entertaining them on a base level. Sometimes the audience wants to be challenged, especially when they read SFF. If you back out on challenging your audience, for instance, you're just a hack trying to cope. Note that challenging your audience does not equal cheap subversion or black morality.
>>168989202>hurr just make french fries and burgerswhat a retard, lmao
>>168989202This relies on the fallacious argument of the author being perfect and not a human who could benefit with editors and others helping him improve his work.
>>168996205can't help but notice your lack of refutation to my initial response, what's the matter buddy?too proud of being a retard to concede you were wrong?or too cowardly a fool to muster up another weak argument?vermin is your ilk, and your kind shall be swallowed by soil soon enough with nothing left to remember them by
>>168996205Is this what happens when someone only consumes mainstream pop culture?There's countless examples of art being made with no commercial intent behind it
>>168989202He's 100% right.
funnybooks aren't art
>>168996209Me calling you stupid did that?
>>168989202Moore is indeed full of shit for a lot of reasons, but an artist or writer choosing to create what they want rather than bow to audience demands is typically a good thing imo. Of course they shouldn't go to established properties and intentionally fuck them up (Star Wars, Star Trek, all comic, in fact most Western franchises in general) which is what they all seem intent on, but if it's their own stories and characters let them create them as they will.
I am tired of people trying to come up with a general rule for creating art. If it works people will like in in present or in the future. If it doesn't then it will be forgotten. Real life is nuanced and you can't apply generalized rules to everything.
>>168998713>Of course they shouldn't go to established properties and intentionally fuck them up (Star Wars, Star Trek, all comic, in fact most Western franchises in general)If you think these properties are being fucked up because someone is trying to make art, you are truly clueless.
>>168998461>>168998387The thing about "Good" writing of the past is that it was tied to national/religious/philosophical destiny which made it an important part of one's cultural mythos. Beowulf is written like shit and all the Norse Myths are probably as trashy as any DC comic but they have a role in shaping the identities and thoughts of the people that they were told to.The same cannot be said for Marvel Movies, Game of Thrones or Star Wars, or anything at all written today. Memorizing Lord of the Rings doesn't let you do your job or live your life better. People need to work service jobs and live in a thriving industry. Consuming more "Well written" geek media that takes itself too seriously does not shape them in a way that benefits society, and can even have some dangerous consequences if taken too seriously. People like Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut were well aware of this, so they chose satire to mock their readers and their relationship to literature.Establishing this, the only role left for "writing" is to make people happy. Which doesn't require as much depth or put pressure on stories to be as complex or engaging, because that complexity itself serves no purpose/can be destructive.
>>168998461they know but it breaks their whole world view so they have to claim otherwise
>>168998501it is cringe that you will die without a trace left in the memory of humanity>>168999281don't care, didn't ask, never said that pop-culture is high art or should be memorized and so I have no clue why you're responding to me, maybe take a reading comprehension course sometime eh?
>>168989202>lead by comparing art to food you'd eat at a restaurant>thereby immediately ruling out all art that seeks to challenge, discomfort, revolt, and speak to emotional and psychological fulfilment beyond the superficial instant gratification>i.e. most great art ever made in any mediumGood job illustrating his point genius.Great creative work comes from artists being inspired, not from the audience having the ideas and saying "make this for me, I can't be arsed". Audiences come to art because they want a look into another world that isn't just the inside of their own heads. And guess what OP - sometimes "masturbation made for the artist" ends up being widely loved anyway, or even just a cult favorite, if the artist has an interesting vision. Plenty of great film, literature, music, even some TV fits that description.As usual Moore is talking about something very straightforward and fundamental to the idea of self-expression, and massive tards are getting offended because they're stuck on whatever hollywood flick upset them last.
>>168997209>appeal to authorityWhere did I do that?you have no idea what those rhetoric terms acyually mean outside of some inforgraph you downloaded and skimmed.
>>168989202at a good restaurant you should actually do this.
>>169001056Only if the customer asks for it
>>168997795As much as he hates it his claim to fame and magnum opus is A FUCKING SWAMP THING COMIC
>>168989202I mean it's ironic coming from a guy who had tremendous critical success and who could get a book deal for scans of his pocket lint. I used to really like his work but it's like it's all just evaporated like fairy gold to dry leaves and it's so diminished. I wonder if that would still be the case if he'd just kept his fucking mouth shut.
>>168994442>Do you not see what happens to series when they "listen" to the audience?Sorry but could you give an example? Because literally all I can think of are the hundreds of shitfests that intentionally spat in the audience's eye and were terrible. At least if people tried to appeal to their audience they might make something entertaining
>>168989202>If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audiencewhat a fuckin brainlet take lmao
I love it when he shit's on Marvel.
>>169000971If you're going to make something for the entertainment industry, it should be entertaining. Is this some radical notion? Are you so dim you can't accept this? It's not that things OUGHT to be this way, it simply IS. Accept it. But more importantly, you should want your message or vision to also be entertaining, otherwise nobody is going to care!
>>168989202>equating art and foodFuck consoomers
>>169002070plenty of things are made for the entertainment industry that are not entertaining
>>169002124But it should be entertaining. Art should be entertaining.
>>169002164If you are entertained by a background drawing, you're a glue huffer.
>>168989202Keith Johnstone is a better writer than Alan Moore and he doesn't write.
>>169002236Entertainment's purpose is to ENTERTAIN. It's an added bonus if it gets you to think about life or consider things. There is nothing wrong with liking something just because it's fun.I think about Reggie Fils-Aime said once. Something like: "If it's not fun, then what's the point?"
>>169002164engaging at the least Art should be engaging. and Not persceiptive. so much of what we watch on tv and streaming actually fits the bill of propaganda. There to preach to us about what a good citizen of the world is, rather than presenting ius with a case to judge for ourselves.
>>168989202Alan Moore puts too much rape in his books. /thread
>>169002366Oh, I think the same as you then. I mistakenly thought that other user referred to the crafts involved in a entertainment product rather than products themselves.In that case, yes I agree that they're bad products if they fail to entertain.>>169002423Engagement is very nebulous. For example:>WHOAH HOLY SHIT HE DISTORTED THE WHOLE VIDEO AND CALLED HIMSELF GOD WHILE MAKING A LOUD SHRIEKThat's engaging. Is it entertaining? I was actually bored as fuck of it after the initial scare wore off.
>>169002366That reggie quote is retarded, but all art should be entertaining/engaging to a certain degree, if it isnt why would you engage with it instead of just going about your life?
>>169002828No it shouldn't be. Engagement is the only thing that matters.