[the_af]

I don't think the concern is that Davis "did it for the money", and that's not a fair representation of why some of us mock Jim Davis.

I don't think anybody is arguing comic authors shouldn't make money out of their work.

The concern is that Garfield is the product of conscious market research and not whatever we imagine a comic artist goes through when creating their comics. You can dismiss this as some ridiculous search for "purity", but wouldn't you say most people imagine Watterson, Schultz, etc. went through a process more or less "I liked these other cartoons, and wouldn't it be cool to make something about <idea>/<childhood memories>/<something that inspired me>/<something that worries me>" vs "hey, let's make money, what kind of character would make me the most money?".

Davis is not the only one, of course.

[vintermann]

> The concern is that Garfield is the product of conscious market research and not whatever we imagine a comic artist goes through when creating their comics.

Jim Davis has consistently said this, but really, take a look at strip #1. It's not funny, it's not cute. It's a cruel joke at his own expense - I don't think it's overanalyzing it to say that the cartoonist loser Jon is a stand-in for Jim. If this was a product of market research, it was the worst market research ever!

[the_af]

It's possible Davis overstated his claim for effect. There are definitely elements of Jon as an author stand-in.

As an aside, over here (Argentina) we have an extremely marketing-oriented and bad comics author, Nik, who "invented" a cartoon cat vaguely similar to Garfield called "Gaturro", which started as a copy of Garfield with a slightly more political bent. It's as bad and bland as Garfield, without any trace of originality.

As Fight Club would have it, "a copy of a copy of a copy...".

I'm sure some of my vitriol against Garfield is influenced by my dislike of Nik and his Gaturro.

[weard_beard]

Art without money is madness. Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time.

99% of everything commercially produced is somewhere between these and, if made by a person, part of a cannon, a body of work that grows and changes as the person does.

Just because an artist invites us into their mind does not mean we don’t owe them the respect we’d give a stranger. At least that’s how I look at it.

[the_af]

We don't owe Jim Davis any kind of respect as an artist. He must earn it.

In the scale you're describing, he leans heavily towards making money and away from the art part. It's OK to feel scorn for this. It's also OK to respect it, but that's not me.

> Art without money is madness

This isn't what my comment was about, but I cannot refrain from answering: art can exist perfectly well without money. I'd say the vast majority of art humanity produces is not related to money at all. It is definitely not madness without money.

> Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time.

Sadly, I don't think the former is true, and I don't think the latter matters enough.

[weard_beard]

Different pen strokes for different folks.

I used to binge read those meaningless colorful flip books to put myself to sleep.

Benadryl without the side effects.

Is it art? It felt like the smear of endless days I couldn’t escape and it was comforting. It didn’t challenge me, but I treasure it.

Like a child’s fairy tale that never ends and every day was just… ever after

[jjulius]

>Art without money is madness.

... wha?

... huh?

I've created so much art in my spare time, for the sheer love and joy of it. It's done for me, but I've shared it with friends and family and they've also greatly appreciated it, and sometimes participated in it with me with splendid results. Money has never entered the equation.

Am I missing something, or am I correct in my reading of that statement? If I'm correct, I don't mean to be judgemental, but that's a horribly disappointing view of art, whatever the medium, and I'm sorry that you feel that way.

[weard_beard]

Would you go and dig rocks out of a mountain and refine them into pure ore just because?

We are social animals. Art is storytelling. It has many utilities, but it is primarily education and entertainment.

A modern version of the cave painting is to distill complex and uncomfortable truths about the world for those who wish to thrive in a society built on lies.

If you want to go dig shiny rocks from the mountain at great personal risk to your mental and physical health for no benefit to society you are probably sick. If it heals you, that's its utility.

But if you find you're good at it and you want to use this skill for its intended purpose, you aught to be getting paid for it.

*Your mileage may vary. Just my take.

[jjulius]

As someone who is into producing visual and musical art for no monetary benefit, and happens to do a lot of backpacking and is very into the geology of the areas I backpack in, yes. I would absolutely find great value in something akin to trekking into remote, hard to reach areas just to see some rocks shaped by ancient glaciers.

If that all makes me "sick", then fuck yeah, proud to be mentally ill. It's truly sad that doing something for pleasure, education, love, fascination and reverence (like being fascinated about how our planet shaped itself, or learning to play the guitar because you love music and think it's fun) is viewed as "mad" or "sick" if there isn't some kind of monetary return. YMMV indeed, but money is not everything.

What's sick, in my eyes, is only being able to view things through the lens of monetary value.

[weard_beard]

Money is just a proxy for the value your skill brings to society.

I appreciate your perspective, but I hope you appreciate that mine is just aligned with a more social view of the world.

[jjulius]

Social impacts don't need to be tied to money.

Getting together with your friends and playing/creating music together, with/for yourselves, and for no financial gain is of tremendous value, for instance.

[the_af]

> Money is just a proxy for the value your skill brings to society.

It can be, but it's not the only one.

> mine is just aligned with a more social view of the world

I wouldn't say this, no. It's just a money-oriented worldview, not a more social one.

[biztos]

Doesn’t that impugn a whole lot of classics?

Dudes sitting in a smoky room: “Yeah, so the pig’s a big fat pig with mobility issues and get this, he stutters hahahaha gonna sell like moonshine, go tell the artists.”

[the_af]

> Doesn’t that impugn a whole lot of classics?

I'm sure it impugns many of the classics (and later), not only Garfield! In my mind, it does impugn He-Man, G.I. Joe, etc. YMMV, of course.

> Dudes sitting in a smoky room: “Yeah, so the pig’s a big fat pig with mobility issues and get this, he stutters hahahaha gonna sell like moonshine, go tell the artists.”

There was a lot of artistry in the Looney Toons, the artists were both doing it for the money (of course) but also out of love for cartoons and they had ideas about them. It wasn't pure cold hearted market research. They didn't go "what would sell more stuffed toys, a pig or a rabbit?".

There must have been some of this too, of course, but have you read memories or articles about Tex Avery and other people involved? They truly cared about their craft. They had ideas about what they wanted to achieve, and it wasn't just "make money".

[biztos]

Good points, and to be honest I love the older, meaner cartoons. But cute Mickey and cute p-p-p-Porky differed from their originals for the same reason as the “Garfield is a lasagna” joke stopped making visual sense.