The difference in attitudes to fanart and fanfic

[alias_sqbr]

General meta about fanworks tends to be written by fanfic writers(*), and I often get a squidgy feeling of "that's not right" when I try and apply their conclusions/assumptions to fanart. Unfortunately I suck at this sort of sociological analysis so this is just some vague impressions, please let me know if your experience is different

Comments

[dharma_slut]

this is totally off the top of my head, but I think the issue of time invested is part of this perception-- NOT the time invested by the creator, but by the viewer or reader. it takes much less time to "read" an image, famously worth a thousand words (and I do agree with that) than it does to read a story.

i know that a lot of people cannot fathom the time it takes to make visual art. They really don't seem to have a grasp of it at all. I think that they see fanart and feel that it's something that was created in a minute-- because that's how long they need to look at it-- and demonstrates less obsessiveness from its creator than a written story does.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm, maybe. I have trouble imagining thinking that myself, but I grew up drawing, so I wouldn't!

It's interesting the way that fanart is considered both easy/insignificant and hard/obscure: fannish communities will for example do challenges for everyone to write drabbles because "everyone" can write, but if everyone had to draw a picture there would be lots of complaints!

[dharma_slut]

Yes!

And that perception is wrong too-- I see a lot of drabble writing that is the equivalent of stick figures...

[alias_sqbr]

Sometimes I feel like encouraging all the people who seem to see art as this weird incomprehensible thing to just have a go, it's not that hard! But my experience of the difficulty of art is no more representative than that of all the people who think "everyone can write".

[violetsquirrel]

It is an interesting difference, yeah. I'd love to see research into it. I think there's also some kind of sense of not expecting art to necessarily be in character? I don't know why but I think it's easier for the creator of a work to see art as a parody or a joke or something not to be taken seriously if it's something wildly out of character, than a 3000 word story about it. So it's not seen as as embarrassing to show it to the creator (or person! People draw fanart of real people all the time and send it to them and that's seen as perfectly acceptable (at least in Japanese fandoms, maybe I'm wrong about Western ones) whereas you'd never send them fanfic of themselves). Maybe it's because fanart doesn't have context, so it feels less like trying to take control of the character? I'm not sure if that's quite the way to express the feeling I'm thinking of

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. That's interesting. People quite possibly do see it that way, personally I don't but that may be because I draw (and my art is often telling a story as much as my fic) The specific issues around pictures of characters that are played by real people and how that differs from pictures of that actor is this whole other very interesting thing I have no idea about :)

Aha! I knew I had to be wrong somewhere about Japanese fannish attitudes. Thanks.

[violetsquirrel]

Seconded. I've seen JP fansites shut down specifically because they goofed on putting anti-indexing code on their pages (to block against Google and/or Yahoo), and could only undo the damage by obliterating themselves and going into hiding. It's a really heavy onus of shame to be identified, even under an alias, it seems.

[kadeton]

It could have something to do with art being more representational/reflexive, and literature being more interpretational/constructive. Writing does more to establish character and motivation. Using someone else's character in your art is like putting an action figure in a Barbie dress - it might be 'out of character', but doesn't threaten the character's integrity because it's simply representation - the character is without agency. Fanfiction takes direct control of the character's persona, generally re-imagining it in the image of the fanfiction writer's idea of what the character should be, which fundamentally undermines authorial control.

Pictures might be worth a thousand words, but those words are purely descriptive, not prescriptive. :)

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. I think people may see it that way, as a fanartist I definitely don't, my pictures often tell a moderately complicated story (and not just the wordless comics etc) I think art is more often just reflexive, but I don't know that it is inherently so.

[kadeton]

Heh, I thought I'd been pretty careful to avoid saying that either art or literature were exclusively anything. ;)

I suppose to put it in the old terms of show vs tell, literature can both show and tell, whereas pictures can only show. The 'telling' bit is where I think authors balk at the use of their work.

[alias_sqbr]

Ahhhh. You mean that art cannot directly say "Harry Potter was an evil genius who wanted only to pick on poor innocent Snape", it can only draw him being an evil genius and picking on Snape, thus leaving more room for personal interpretation of motives and evil-ness etc?

I guess that's true, though in my opinion art can be pretty unambiguous and didactic, and captures a lot of character and motivation with expression and mood etc. I think my "But they wouldn't DO that!" emotional reaction is about equally strong for both, especially since fanart often comes with titles and notes that "tell" anyway. But this is about other people's emotional reactions, and you may be right.

A note on definitions

[gyges_ring]

Are you defining 'money for fanart' as money for fanart or profit for fanart? Because it strikes me (a relative outsider) as being something where there may be a thriving cash market, without much being made, just because of the cost of supplies for visual works as compared to literary. (Assuming comparable time costs).

Re: A note on definitions

[alias_sqbr]

In some cases it's to cover costs, but in others it's definitely "I need rent money, lets do some commissions". Especially with digital art.

I mean the pay rate is usually pretty dire, $30 or so for what would take me at least three or four hours to draw, though I guess I could just be slow.

Delicious LiveJournal Links for 11-17-2010

[pingback_bot]

User metafandombot referenced to your post from Delicious LiveJournal Links for 11-17-2010 saying: [...] : The difference in attitudes to fanart and fanfic [...]