Thursday, November 11, 2004
On Fanart
TeawithVoldy has some questions about fanart, its reviews, and whether it's considered lesser than fanfic. (She also has some questions about het vs. slash, but that's not really my area of expertise, heh.) She wonders why art is secondary to fiction and gets less reviews and followings.
This inspired me to thinking. First, I admit freely that I am a terrible reviewer. I rarely review art or fic -- but then, I rarely read fic these days. So essentially, my fandom patterns are such that I look at a lot more art than fic. So when I talk about general viewpoints about art and fanart, I do include myself among those influenced.
I think fanart's secondary status -- such as it is -- is due to a combination of factors, many of which are part of a larger scheme than the opinions of fandoms.
TeawithVoldy mentioned the value of art versus writing in society, and I think that's a valid and pervasive influence. Writing seems to have more worth in society than art does. Art is considered frivolous; its visual nature puts emphasis on "pretty picture" rather than "relevant meaning". Look at what associations they have: books are associated with libraries, with knowledge, with study and understanding; art is associated with museums and decoration and illustration. Books with pictures are somehow less than books without; graphic novels merge the writing with the art and thus their value is stripped away; English departments aren't threatened in schools, but the arts certainly are; writing and books are necessary and important, but art is just an extra, not worth learning about. Even in college this trend is evident: for my English degree -- a subject that is tied directly to art in many ways -- I am only required to take ONE credit of a fine art. And that means (presuming I wasn't double-majoring in Studio Art) I could ignore visual art all together and take music instead. I don't have facts or figures for this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that even though reading books is less and less common, more people read than go to art galleries.
So, take this into fandom, where creativity is appreciated and inspired no matter what the media. Is it really possible that in fandom, we can undo the societal notions of art's lesser value, that affect us even if we disagree entirely?
In addition to that, there's fanart's association with illustration. The fact that fanart is book illustration also affects how it is regarded -- it's supplemental, but not necessary for the understanding of the novels: already it's "less than." Art itself is underappreciated, but illustration, comic book art and the like are often considered "low" art. Popular, yes. Amazingly well-done, sometimes. But low art nonetheless, unless you're Lichtenstein. One of the commenters on the original post mentioned Ted Nasmith as a "recognised illustrator" -- interestingly, I saw him at a panel at the Texas Book Festival a few weekends ago, and he had the same gripes about how illustration is viewed as less respectable than "real" art. The bottom line is that you're "wasting" your talent drawing someone else's characters when you could be making your own art.
Now, having said this, I don't think this is a viewpoint held or argued by most fic writers and fandom participants -- after all, doesn't fanfic face the same accusations? But, I think there's an undercurrent of this idea that illustration isn't "real" art, and this notion pervades even communities where derivative fan works are the primary creations. Why talk about composition or colour usage or symbolism in a piece that's just an illustration? It has a clear surface meaning -- and often a clear method of production -- that doesn't always invite a closer inspection. People can look and leave, as they are often wont to do with illustrations in books or graphic novels.
This "look and leave" trend may also have something to do with the language of art and art review. Several commenters on the original thread remarked that they don't review because they think they simply lack the ability to talk about why a piece of fanart is wonderful (or not-so-wonderful). I suppose they might feel intimidated by merely saying, "This is great," or "Wow, so beautiful," though I think many artists happily accept those kinds of praises. I think, however, people are more concerned about the inability to speak critically about art. Again, this is something that is not taught in school because it's frivolous -- but artspeak is often pretentious, anyway. Talking about art isn't that much different than talking about writing. Repetition, parallel structure, metaphor, detail, symbolism, paradox, rhythm, awkwardness, choice, point of view, vibration, mood, theme, tone, etc. -- ALL can be used to speak about either prose or painting. Those who write DO have the language of art at their fingertips, and inspecting an artwork with a critical or interpretive eye will reveal many things they thought they never knew.
However, there is another factor here: that of the digital world. Fanfic online can keep a reader's interest over months and years with the continued efforts of a prolific writer, or the use of the mighty cliffhanger. Art is always a one-shot. Further, art online is by necessity viewed on a small screen, only viewed from one angle and at the mercy of individual settings and monitor resolutions. Text is the same no matter where you look at it -- but with traditional art especially, the detail, touch, scale, subtlety, and other aspects that invite a long, lingering look at a piece of art, are often lost on the computer screen. Perhaps this, too, contributes to the tendencies of people to click, look, and click back to their regular scheduled browsing.
Fanart, though, takes just as much effort, time, and thought as fan fiction, and even though it might suffer less reviews or fan base, I think it's just as important in fandom. As for myself... I resolve to leave more reviews on fanart. It's the least I can do, as a fellow artist.
| 7:16 PM |
Comments
Who am I? I'm a twenty-two-
