The difference in attitudes to fanart and fanfic

Nov 10, 2010 09:46

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 ( Read more... )

writing, fanfic, art, thoughts, fanart, meta, fandom

Leave a comment

kadeton November 10 2010, 15:07:15 UTC
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. :)

Reply

alias_sqbr November 12 2010, 03:04:09 UTC
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.

Reply

kadeton November 12 2010, 05:02:35 UTC
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.

Reply

alias_sqbr November 16 2010, 03:01:27 UTC
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.

Reply

violetsquirrel November 19 2010, 07:10:04 UTC
This is what I was thinking of, just in bigger and better-explained words than I managed XD

Reply


Leave a comment

Up