Like shooting fish in a barrel. I do it too, I must confess. We live in a pretty modest neighborhood that has an all-McMansion neighborhood attached to it via a causeway. It's still under construction, so we enjoy cruising through it occasionally to see what they're up to and they never fail to deliver. I guess snobbery is sometimes a two way street.
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.
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.
My uncle, a priest who had to deal with many proud parents of ugly babies, kept it simple: when he was presented with a baby too homely for praise he would exclaim "What a baby!" and the parents would always beam. 'Nuff said.
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 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.
Passed out drunk in a tattoo parlor bathroom?
Hmm, that's a little clunky. How about the "Wry So Serious?"