At 1/16/15 05:20 PM, lovingthedark wrote:
Your most recent journal post says otherwise pretty emphatically.
All of my journal entries are about voting injustices (they have been since like 2012). Most of them are defending other artists. I'm just very annoyed with voting abuse/disregard for critical artistic evaluation in general. And very displeased at how art has become a commodity to many people. It's something that's not limited to Newgrounds, but particularly prevalent here.
You cater pretty well to the NG mold, I'd say tits, fanart, mechs and monsters and all. Is that not what speaks to you?
I mean 90% of my work isn't on NG and the work that is on NG, maybe only 50% of it was meant for NG specifically. A lot of what I post is just runoff from groups like Brainstorm and Daily Spitpaint, or portfolio pieces that I didn't mind posting. I don't mean this in a dismissive way, but NG isn't like...my life. It never was, not from the day I joined. I have 1,000 fans and honestly I feel nothing. 95% of these people just eat my work like candy. That's all it is to them. Candy.
So you're saying people should have what, more voting power based on followers...
I wouldn't say voting power. That would be too elitist. I would say just allow users to be scouted multiple times and keep a count of how many times they've been scouted. Put a star next to their name or something. It's simple and it shows how much merit a person has based on their skill level, as evaluated by other scouted users (who are, presumably, artists). It allows people who are actually thinking critically about art to honor users they respect, and distinguishes thorough, critical opinions from ambiguous masses of votes.
Who do you want to serve with your art?
My landlord. TBH, I serve nobody with my art except maybe a client. But what it comes down to is artists being able to set standards for their own communities. Places like DrawCrowd and ArtStation pull it off, and therefore boast an incredibly high level of skill. This is because they haven't fallen into the trappings of subjectivity. Art is very unique in that way. It is the only industry where consumers 100% of the time place their opinions above those of experts. You don't get that in any other skilled trade. But with art, everyone is thoroughly convinced that their opinion is paramount to all standards of skill or merit. And with that line of thinking, you lose all sense of structure. Everything becomes this subjective mush that can't be evaluated. All sense of progression is lost. Skill becomes meaningless. It just becomes "like it or don't".
And as long as people are convinced that art is simply something for them to like or dislike, not a part of an artist's journey, not a representation of skill or progression in the understanding of a science, it won't ever be respected here like it is elsewhere.
PS: as for my latest journal post, I'm just being a provocative dick. If I cared about my ratings I would have just stored my art in the "trash" like I said and restored it at a different point. I wouldn't have openly reported the TWATWATWAT user in the thread, out of fear of being targeted (because if they had the time to do that, the probably have the time to do this). I have no interest in "saving" my ratings. Many of those paintings have been +1'd by people like James Paick and John Park, so I already know what they're worth. It's just me being immature.