Poll: Is the internet good or bad for Artists?

[Vault101]

reading this article
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-internet-has-made-everyone-entitled-dick/

and in light of a more "passionate" thread I made, it all got me thinking.

Overall if you are an "artist" (and by artist I mean all mediums and media...muscians,artists,writers,programmers ect..) has the internet been a blessing or a curse?

at first it seems that the interent is the greatest thing ever, and it is true in that getting your work to an audience is easyer than ever, no middlemen in the way to potenitally screw you over

however lowering the barrier of entry also means there is so much out there that finding and keeping an audience is hard, if your content exists on the internet then essentially your competing against peoples videos of their cats

which is terrifying because NO ONE can stand up to the power of cats

and making money from your creation is also hard in the day and age of people expecting things to be free,

of coarse alot of this depends of industry and medium, what do you think?

 

[aba1]

I think you bring up a interesting point and it is something that concerns me not many people think about it but if you always torrent everything smaller artists make no money which they need to live and when you are looking for commissions and work your always against the best of the best at all times no matter what in all of the world.

 

[Nouw]

I'd say yes, particularly Youtube. Just look at all the artists and performers there that are getting attention and even money. Sure competition is tough but at least this way you can improve yourself or fail in a safer environment.

 

[NightmareExpress]

As with everything, it all depends.
Overall, I'd imagine yes because of the sheer amount of exposure.
You can get your message and wares out there at literally the click of the button and with basic advertising, none of the hassle of "old-age" marketing. But then you have to be prepared to face some of the new challenges of the modern age, like increased competition and demand for material that's familiar, yet fresh.

Though I've always found it sad when somebody says "quick commissions, will draw anything"...reminds me of a cheap prostitute or a talented homeless person, really.

 

[Vault101]

Whether that's necassarily bad for artists, I don't know, but it certainly has lowered the bar to be called an artist, which in my opinion is bad.

I dont think it "lowered the bar" that much.....plenty of people out there to tell you if your work is crap or good

also penty of drawings look absolutely amazing/gorgeous just as drawings/pictures....and my point wasn't really about what is or isnt art/an artist but how the internet affects the people who make out entertainment

Though I've always found it sad when somebody says "quick commissions, will draw anything"...reminds me of a cheap prostitute or a talented homeless person, really.

eh..you can't walways afford to be picky

if somone was going to pay me to draw them their furry porn sonic/mass effect crossover then hell yes I'll whore out

 

[Strazdas]

Yes. Removal of the barrier of entry due to cheap costs of creation. Removal of the middleman studio that could pull your money and dicatate your art whenever it pleased. Acess to many other work to take your inspiration from. Easy acess to other belief systems and cultures to research and information to make your creation more accurate (removing stereotypes). And last but not least a common konwledge databases like wikipedia and devianart.
Internet is a blessing for all creative people and others as well. The only people who suffer is midleman managers who used to gain money by finding

artists and then showing their works to others, because they get cut out since artists can show their work themselves now.

I think you bring up a interesting point and it is something that concerns me not many people think about it but if you always torrent everything smaller artists make no money which they need to live and when you are looking for commissions and work your always against the best of the best at all times no matter what in all of the world.

we have piracy threads, lets not turn this into one.

I'd say yes, particularly Youtube. Just look at all the artists and performers there that are getting attention and even money. Sure competition is tough but at least this way you can improve yourself or fail in a safer environment.

Yep, a good example is Ryan Higa. he started uplaoding yourtube videos as a kid just for fun, and at one point it was #1 in youtube watches (now #2) and is cheating his own movies and concerts now. youtube spearheaded him.

A lot of "art" I see on the internet isn't really art. They're just drawings, which, in my opinion aren't art. Just like writings do not necassarily have to be literature.

there is definite definition of art. art is subjective. i created a derpina meme today. that is art. i dont want any credit for me, repost it all i care, but that does not make it less of an art. for example in my opnion mona lisa is pretty bad painting. does that make it less "art"? no.

I'm not saying it's easy to draw like some people do, but art (just like literature) should always have more depth to it than just "I drew this because I liked how it looked."

art is about expressing your own feelings, thoughts, emotions. drawing "Because i liked this" is exactly what art is about.

if somone was going to pay me to draw them their furry porn sonic/mass effect crossover then hell yes I'll whore out

funny thing, i know an artist, that draws awesome paintings. thing is, noone buys them. so she makes her living by drawing fantasy porn (like dragons and stuff). that how she pays for her food and rent. but she loves the other paintings more and does not give up on them. without the porn she would have needed a dayjob long time ago and had no time left for her passion. so there is nothing wring with earnign your living by any means provided.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Whether that's necassarily bad for artists, I don't know, but it certainly has lowered the bar to be called an artist, which in my opinion is bad.

I disagree completely. Publishers and record labels don't publish and promote things that are clever, deep or meaningful. They promote things that have a market, i.e. things they think will sell. The fact that more people are able to show their creations to a broader audience isn't a bad thing, and it doesn't lower standards. If only a few hundred people enjoy something, let them enjoy it. Things shouldn't need to have mass appeal just to be worthy of being seen.

 

[Nouw]

I'd say yes, particularly Youtube. Just look at all the artists and performers there that are getting attention and even money. Sure competition is tough but at least this way you can improve yourself or fail in a safer environment.

Yep, a good example is Ryan Higa. he started uplaoding yourtube videos as a kid just for fun, and at one point it was #1 in youtube watches (now #2) and is cheating his own movies and concerts now. youtube spearheaded him.

Doesn't even have to be the most, or almost, popular people. Madeon's live remix named Pop Culture got him to where he is today, doing tours and being a rising musician in house music. I could go on and on listing such people that, thanks to the internet, have an easy means of spreading their work and talent.

 

[thesilentman]

A lot of "art" I see on the internet isn't really art. They're just drawings, which, in my opinion aren't art. Just like writings do not necassarily have to be literature.

I'm not saying it's easy to draw like some people do, but art (just like literature) should always have more depth to it than just "I drew this because I liked how it looked."

If you catch my drift.

I know you speak about artists in general, well, the same goes for storywriters out there, and it's kind of the same for musicians.

Whether that's necassarily bad for artists, I don't know, but it certainly has lowered the bar to be called an artist, which in my opinion is bad.

Chalk that up to elitism from both sides. One side will argue that it's not art and the other will argue that it is art. It's more an entitlement issue.

I think that you're being overly negative here. If you don't like what you currently find on the Internet as art, try harder. Art is one that people need to try harder to find good examples of, also known as Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is shit).

EDIT- Forgot to add my thoughts to this.

OT- Overall, it's good. At least we can see works that otherwise might have not made it due to demanding publishers (good thing and bad thing). The only bad thing I can think of is that there's some person out there who's going to pirate it and not give money.

 

[Strazdas]

I'd say yes, particularly Youtube. Just look at all the artists and performers there that are getting attention and even money. Sure competition is tough but at least this way you can improve yourself or fail in a safer environment.

Yep, a good example is Ryan Higa. he started uplaoding yourtube videos as a kid just for fun, and at one point it was #1 in youtube watches (now #2) and is cheating his own movies and concerts now. youtube spearheaded him.

Doesn't even have to be the most, or almost, popular people. Madeon's live remix named Pop Culture got him to where he is today, doing tours and being a rising musician in house music. I could go on and on listing such people that, thanks to the internet, have an easy means of spreading their work and talent.

Sure, it doesnt, but one is a good example. and yes, the internet has helped a lot of people become what they are today.

 

[Scarim Coral]

The above discussion remind me of this image-

Spoiler

<img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/ccceaf0f645dee77dc7e2ca3d94ec8f0/tumblr_mf3i4gC9tM1r7ogo4o1_1280.png" img src>

Spoiler: But wait, there more!

awdplace:

artist-confessions:

This makes me sick!

True art getting only 8 faves and a brightly colored scene dog with horrible anatomy getting 145 faves. Guess that?s DeviantART logic..

submitted by -Anonymous

Sorry guys, I had to say something here?

I saw this and it immediately made me think? You?re arguing logic with popular culture?

Let"s think for a moment, "fine art" or "museum" art was never "popular" they were often commissioned by the richest people in history. Artists who often made paintings on their free time looking to make money out of it often starved and died "unpopular" until someone discovered them after death and made them more known. But I digress?

Yeah? it"s a shame a fine art piece is given less attention than say for example a Lisa Frank Don Bluth dog, but you know what? Good luck? to all artists out there? If you can make something that a number of people can enjoy, who can stop you but the general public? There are tons of crappy movies out there that get a crapload of attention and money because people never, EVER looked at something for the "art" of it. They want entertainment. And you know what? Whatever, it?s done its job, YOU don?t have to like it.

Art is something that is inspiring to those who can appreciate it and most especially enjoyed by the one who made it, hopefully. Even if a small group is paying attention, it's still an audience, and it is still making a difference SOMEWHERE. If the artist didn?t enjoy making what they did, then what"s the point of it? Seriously? To get popular on Deviantart? I can admit that I have a lot of views, but not as many views as the most popular person on DA, but I don?t seek it out, why? I?m happy for what I have, and I take enjoyment out of the fact that there is an audience out there that appreciates me. I lost that battle about "popularity" and finding out what people find ?popular? years ago? It's cyclical, rare, unpredictable, and all about luck.

You may reach a million people with the crappiest piece of so-called, rainbow splashed pop art, if the intention was just to get "popular" with it, well, whoop-de-poop. Focus on your own intentions.

Congrats to sweetpinkpetals, you drew what you wanted, and there are people that like it. Congrats to nosoart, you may not have got as many ?faves? on DeviantArt, but you may have made an old lady and her dog very happy.

Link http://awdplace.tumblr.com/post/38736883378/artist-confessions-this-makes-me-sick-true

As for me I think it's a good thing. I mean even those artist that did work hard for their work do at least used the internet in some way to get more exposusal.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It depends on the context. It is good for artists when it comes to finding an audience; however, it is bad for artists if they try to directly monetize that audience. Basically, while it is relatively trivial to get people to look at your works, it is incredibly difficult to convince them to pay for those works.

 

[Eleuthera]

(going to focus on music)

I'll put it this way, out of the top-50 artists I listen to, 26 I discovered through the internet, and none of those have ever been played on radio or (music) television over here. Of those 26 I have been to shows or bought CDs (or mp3s) of at least 15 and listened to legally streamed music for all the others.

In other words half the artsist I enjoy have made money of me due to the internet.

For games something similar (or possibly even stronger) is going on. Before the internet I learned about a new game (or series) because a friend had it or I accidentally saw it in a store.

 

[Hoplon]

It's good because it cuts out the useless twats that are the middle men of publishing in what ever medium you care to mention. It can be bad because of people that pirate because they must have all the things then forget to ever buy anything.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

I was about to make the argument but you already put it there...

its not an issue with the site per se..its an issue with demographic, and correctly fine art paintings like the lady and her dog are good but are never going to be as popular as somthing eith more "mass" apeal (the mass of the internet liking ponies and sci fi/fantasy)

funny thing, i know an artist, that draws awesome paintings. thing is, noone buys them. so she makes her living by drawing fantasy porn (like dragons and stuff). that how she pays for her food and rent. but she loves the other paintings more and does not give up on them. without the porn she would have needed a dayjob long time ago and had no time left for her passion. so there is nothing wring with earnign your living by any means provided.

not "actual" porn I hope..I mean I know its only drawings but still...

 

[Strazdas]

funny thing, i know an artist, that draws awesome paintings. thing is, noone buys them. so she makes her living by drawing fantasy porn (like dragons and stuff). that how she pays for her food and rent. but she loves the other paintings more and does not give up on them. without the porn she would have needed a dayjob long time ago and had no time left for her passion. so there is nothing wring with earnign your living by any means provided.

not "actual" porn I hope..I mean I know its only drawings but still...

Yes, actual hand-drawn porn. You know, like those avatar porn things (really cant give more examples since i never was in that kind of porn).

 

[Vault101]

Yes, actual hand-drawn porn. You know, like those avatar porn things (really cant give more examples since i never was in that kind of porn).

huh.....well I guess I shouldnt be surprised

EDTI: wait hold on...some people PAY for their fantasy porn?

 

[The Last Nomad]

Yes... Its very good for artist who want to make art.
Its not good for 'artist' who want to make money.

 

[Ranorak]

Look at Deviant art.
99% of it is crap, but sometimes you find a gem.
A gem that would otherwise have been left on a fridge with a strawberry magnet.

The entry bar is non existent, so for every piece of awesome, there are 99 pieces of shit.

I mean, look at stuff like this:

Spoiler: a few personal favourite fanart