Poll: Is the internet good or bad for Artists?

[Combustion Kevin]

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

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

dude, didn't you know?
that business is a bloody goldmine if you play your cards right, draw some porn and then charge people for drawing porn they specifically request.

CAPTCHA: heartache, yeah, this thread gives me that sensation a little bit too.

 

[Hobbit in Denial]

I'd say yes overall. The disadvantages such as copyright infringement, trolls and the like are far outweighed by the sheer amount of exposure you can get nowadays. Just having a page on Facebook for example can get you a potential following in the thousands if you do it right. Then there is Youtube, deviantart, Myspace, Twitter, Newgrounds....the list us endless.

 

[Vault101]

dude, didn't you know?
that business is a bloody goldmine if you play your cards right, draw some porn and then charge people for drawing porn they specifically request.

CAPTCHA: heartache, yeah, this thread gives me that sensation a little bit too.

I forgot about that part

I was thinking not many would put thier fantasy porn on their walls and for that kind of thing why not get it for free in the internet?

THEN I realised people would most definetly pay to get their fantasys "brought to life" so to speak..I knew that but had dumb moment

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Well it's not unusual for me to just spend an afternoon on youtube and discover another half dozen bands that I would otherwise never have heard about. And then buy some of their stuff... sooo, going with 'yes it's good'.

 

[Bertylicious]

My sister happens to be quite into folk singing and has written a song or two. Over Christmas I asked her whether she'd ever consider putting her songs on the internet to allow others to enjoy them.

She said she would not as she wasn't interested in monetising her talent and was very concerned about plagurism. I asked why this was a problem seeing as how she wasn't bothered about money and it would allow her to reach more people. In reply she said that the songs were hers that she enjoyed playing with friends, that they were a unique idea of hers and a unique experience she could share with others.

It's pretty selfish when you think about it.

Anyway, I reckon the net allows artists of all levels greater scope to collaborate, produce and distribute. How can it not have improved things?

 

[Tropicaz]

Well in terms of music artists, as far as I'm aware for a long time most of their money comes from tours and merch anyways rather than actual tracks (when a song costs the consumer £0.70 even if legally obtained then not much will see its way to the artist's pocket). So I think it's probably better as it draws in a larger audience, and ofc merch is sold much more in the internet age.

And of course the internet has opened up way more jobs for programmers/graphic designers so is probably good for them, i suppose.

 

[Entitled]

A much better thread than the previous one. Basically, this is the ultimate question. Not whether any individual lost any hypothatical money over any hypothetical internet usage that I'm doing, but whether our culture as a whole is richer than it was decades ago.

And the answer is, it's depending on where you are coming from:

If you are a Big Content publisher in mainstream media, or working for the Big Content publishing system, then the internet disturbs your established revenue stream, and some of your presupposed "rights".

On the other hand, the Internet has been a blessing for millions of creative types around the world, and not even just in an abstract sense of "getting their works seen by the world", but as long as they have their wits with them, and they are willing to figure out their own way to earn money instead of just signing up at the old Big Content and expecting a payment for all these viewings, they can always turn popularity into money in one way or another.

Current pop stars are selling less copies than the ones in the 60's and 70's. Because for some reasson, people feel "entitled dicks" about listening to Call Me Maybe and Gangam Style on youtube, and only paying for copies at their own pleasure.

But at the same time, the Internet also allowed thousands of indie bands to get known locally, or in an obscure subculture, well enough to organize a small tour, or launch a Kickstarter for an album, or even sell a few thousand discs to the core of their audience.

Overall, I would say that it's an equalising effect, and it's a good thing. It's easier to get past the entry barrier and make some sort of living from art, while it's harder to completely dominate pop-culture.

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

Now that's just unfair. There is a lot more to free Internet content than just cats, much of it is also art, that could legitimately compete with the old media.

We have people like Randall Munroe making a living from XKCD merch, Andrew Hussie supporting himself from Homestuck and collecting $2.5 million to make a Homestuck game, Cory Doctorow releasing his ebooks for free under Creative Commons and then living from the paperback copies only, etc.

People like Jim Sterling are now directly competing with people like Stephen Colbert. You quote Cracked, but Cracked itself is supporting a bunch of article writers while being more free than the magazines of old. (OK, these last two examples are about media in general, not "art", but the same principle applies).

 

[TheDoctor455]

I'd say, overall, yes. It's been good for artists of all kinds.

However, some parts of the internet... not so much.

Piracy is an obvious problem, for obvious reasons.

However, I'd also say that at some points, YouTube, Google, and Apple have been bad for artists.

All three of these companies/sites have, in one way or another, implemented a policy of censorship.

That is, if they deem your work to be 'controversial' by some standard of theirs (the most arbitrary one being a tie between YouTube and Apple), then they'll probably delete it. Youtube usually goes the extra mile by essentially allowing people to file false DMCAs without it putting a strike on the user's account. (maybe they get banned, maybe, but not always)

Why do people file false DMCAs on Youtube?

To silence people they disagree with.

 

[Starik20X6]

The internet is a great thing for content creators. It allows them to get exposure and reach niche audiences that were inconceivable before. But then the problem comes in from something called 'Forced Artificial Scarcity [http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html]'.

You can read all about it at that link (another one from Cracked, funnily enough), but what it basically boils down to is this: media is post-scarcity. After the initial cost of creating something, be it a song, a movie, a game, a picture, whatever, it is now effectively free to reproduce it an infinite number of times. So, what is it worth now? Here's an example from the linked article:

Public libraries have been lending out books to people, for free, for the last 500 years or so. Publishers are OK with it because the library is paying for the book, and if it's a popular book, they'll buy multiple copies so multiple people can check it out at once. Then they'll replace those every couple of years, because if you read a book too much it falls apart at the binding.

But then the publisher invented a better book. An indestructible book called an ebook that could be read 10 billion times without ever falling apart. How much does it cost to manufacture this marvel? Not a goddamned penny. The readers have the ability to "manufacture" copies of their own, on their computer, at no cost to the publisher. It's a post-scarcity book.

So for the publishers, the next step was clear: Make the book destroy itself.
An ebook sold to a library will thus delete itself out of existence after a year, or after X number of times it had been lent out. This is a big source of controversy between publishers and public libraries, maybe because both of them know they've found the loose thread that can unravel all of society. After all:

A. Why can't the library just buy as many digital copies as are needed for the customers, and keep them forever, if they don't naturally degrade?

B. Wait a second. It's just a digital file. Why not just buy one copy, and just copy and paste it for every customer who wants to read it?

C. Wait a second. Why do you need the library at all? Why can't a customer just buy a copy from the publisher and "lend" copies to all of his friends?

D. Wait a second. If no printing and binding needs to be done, why do you need the publisher? Just buy it directly from the author.

E. Waaaaait a second. Why buy it? Once the author makes one copy available, why can't everyone just grab it for free?

Stop and think about everything that just vanished there. Skyscrapers full of publishing company employees, warehouses full of books, book stores, libraries, factories full of printing presses, paper mills, all the stuff the author bought with his writing money. Gone.

 

[Vault101]

snip

I dont belive the internet is the answer to everything

granted when you take out the factor of the physical copy your taking out almost an entire industry...but in the scheme of things theres still a place for the "big" projects..AAA games, big movies, phycials books/comic books, it would be a shame to see such things disapear

 

[Vault101]

Isniph.

to be fair back in the day where your options were eather th emore mainstream chabels or indie you'd be subject to probably even more censorship

 

[DoPo]

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.

No it hasn't - I'm pretty sure there are now the same amount of people calling themselves artists as before the Internet. It's just that you could see more of them. That garage band that only two dozen people knew (their parents, and the people who live near the garage) can now go on YouTube, the girl/guy who draws elaborate doodles in the textbooks now can now go on DeviantArt or even start their own comic with ease. They are just getting more exposure, not being more bold, if you ask me.

 

[Entitled]

granted when you take out the factor of the physical copy your taking out almost an entire industry...but in the scheme of things theres still a place for the "big" projects..AAA games, big movies, phycials books/comic books, it would be a shame to see such things disapear

It's no the solution to everything, but it solves more problems than it creates. More art is better than less art. More individual freedom is better than less freedom. As the above mentioned Cory Doctorow wrote in a monologue in one of his novels, Pirate Cinema:

For hundreds of years, the human race has dreamt of a world where knowledge could be shared universally, where every human being on the planet could have access to our storehouse of knowledge. Because knowledge is power, and shared knowledge is a superpower. Now, after centuries, we have it within our grasp to realize one of our most beautiful
dreams.
 And wouldn't you know it, some people are so bleeding stupid and greedy and blinkered
and ignorant that they think that this is a bad thing. The greatest library of human knowledge and creativity ever seen, ever dreamed of, and all these fools can do is moan about how they can't figure out how to stay rich if kids go around downloading rubbishy pop music without paying for it.

Besides, maybe even the Big Content will figure something out to stay up. Or maybe the new content will grow big enough to be just as spectacular as they were, even without old-school IP guarding.

Some of these money-making methods could still grow bigger. For example, there are millions of people preordering games on Amazon, even though online shopping was once considered rare and risky. If crowdfunding could get established as a trustworthy business model, like a formm of long-term preordering, then established developers could gather tens of millions of dollars from it. That's just one idea.

Like I said, ultimately depending on where you are coming from: I can honestly see where people are coming from when they put Big Content first, but personally, I was always fascinated with the smallest, indiest media, like webcomics or deviantart, or weekly video podcasts, not to mention the art that exists at the edge of the copyright system, like videogame total conversion mods, fanfiction novels, video mashups and remixes, etc.

So for me, it was always about my favourite kind of art first, and the Big Content is nice to have around, but if it threatens my guys, then it should be rather them than me.

For you, I assume, it's the same, with positions switched.

 

[Yopaz]

Without the internet I would never have known about Brandon Sanderson, Skies of Arcadia, Tales of Symphonia, Alex Kava, Rise Against, Thousand Foot Krutch, Billy Talent, Anti-Flag, The Last of The Believers, Alan Wake, Sick Puppies, Yellowcard or any of the talented painters I have seen in the last year.

The internet has also given me what used to be the only way to obtain these things since I lived in the middle of nowhere. 5 minute walk to my closest neighbour. Without the internet I might have found out about these products, but only a few of these could be purchased where I live. Then I learned that I could purchase things on the internet.

There are several artists that have become known after their death and there are probably several artists that were never discovered or never will be. It's a tragedy how some may never be recognized for their work and what a loss it could be for humanity. Take Mendel, he's considered the father of modern genetics. His work was never recognized during his life because he didn't get his content published in anything but obscure papers that wasn't read by that many. If his content had been more easily available it would have changed Darwin's Origin of Species. A big hole in his evolution theory was the lacking knowledge concerning genetics.

Now this isn't art, but an example of how easy it is to make your content known for the world. Internet has made that easier and there's always the possibility to get recognized and appreciated on the internet even though it's hard. It might be hard to compete with all of the pointless things, all of the cute cats, all the rants on forums and the porn, but it's hard to make it as an artist even without distractions. On the internet we have the benefit of a wider audience.

 

[Vault101]

Like I said, ultimately depending on where you are coming from: I can honestly see where people are coming from when they put Big Content first, but personally, I was always fascinated with the smallest, indiest media, like webcomics or deviantart, or weekly video podcasts, not to mention the art that exists at the edge of the copyright system, like videogame total conversion mods, fanfiction novels, video mashups and remixes, etc.

So for me, it was always about my favourite kind of art first, and the Big Content is nice to have around, but if it threatens my guys, then it should be rather them than me.

For you, I assume, it's the same, with positions switched.

well that depends...

I don't wantch TV anymore...but there are web "shows" that serve my niche interests that I regularly watch,they have changed my perception in that they are the "shows" I watch today, only difference is they arent on TV

webcomics...true for the most part but xckd or cyanide and happiness are far from small fry,they are pretty much the well known newspaper comic strips of yesteryear (mabye even bigger)

with games...as much as people trumpet the mertis of indie games (which yes is all true, they are great) I play games for a specific experience stuff like far cry 3 or dishonoured, I would hope there will still be a market for the "big" games.....the the current systm is on shakey ground eather way

as for "threatening" each other it depends....often they are not going after the same piece of pie (like comparing skyrim to angry birds)

 

[Entitled]

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.

No it hasn't - I'm pretty sure there are now the same amount of people calling themselves artists as before the Internet. It's just that you could see more of them. That garage band that only two dozen people knew (their parents, and the people who live near the garage) can now go on YouTube, the girl/guy who draws elaborate doodles in the textbooks now can now go on DeviantArt or even start their own comic with ease. They are just getting more exposure, not being more bold, if you ask me.

But how many of them would have actually called themselves artists?

That guy with the textook with stick figures in it would have said "I'm a college student", not "I'm a textbook stick figure artist".

But the guy whose main method of making a living is to upload strips of stick figures saying something smart to their website on every monday, wednesday, and friday, and selling related merchandise, certainly would.

Besides, I disagree that it lowers the bar to bein with, I think it widens it. Jim Davis and Bill Watterson were called comic strip artists, and it's not because they were on a higher level of artistry than current webcomic artists, but because at the time, there was a limited amount of newspaper surface that could make comic stip drawing a profitable job.

 

[Strazdas]

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?

Yes, and from what i hear they pay pretty well. She does not like drawing them, but thats what pays the bills.

 

[Something Amyss]

Like most things in life, it's a mixed blessing.

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.

Few people "always torrent everything," and people seeking commissions are largely doing fine, though. You also have to consider the fact that small artists are less likely to be pirated and and benefit most from the exposure of the internet.

 

[Something Amyss]

But the guy whose main method of making a living is to upload strips of stick figures saying something smart to their website on every monday, wednesday, and friday, and selling related merchandise, certainly would.

Is there anyone who actually does this other than the creator of XKCD?

He really is an artist, by the way. Well, an artist by the conventional sort of term you're talking. He can draw pretty damn fine-looking stuff. So I think that limits the number of stick-figure-drawing professionals who aren't artists to a pool of about 0.