Let's Talk About Fanart

1st Official Post

    Alright, so I haven't been around for awhile (struggling with a lot of tragedy IRL. Not a fun happy place to be ;^; ) but I wanted to get this out there and spoken about. I'm sorry if it seems inappropriate or if it's in the wrong place.

    Lately on several places, but mostly tumblr, people (mostly feminists) have been ranting and raving about the way certain characters are portrayed in fanart. Basically, the TLDR version is that a bunch of extremely sensitive people get upset when characters that are fat, queer, or any minority are portrayed as white, thin, or straight. Basically, if you do this sort of stuff you are the most awful person to exist and should feel ashamed for taking away the representation of a minority (since when are fat people a minority...?)

    However, it is okay to take white, thin, and straight characters and portray them as a different race entirely, and make them as gay as you'd like, and as fat as you'd like. If you have an issue with that ... well, you better just suck it up, because doing these things is okay and empowering to minorities. Whenever I link to the tumblr, it tends to display the entire freaking post right here on the forum, so I'm going to link to a web archive of it for ease of use. https://archive.is/sskPe


    (Please note, this isn't the only tumblr stating this. There are several examples if you'd like more)

    It bothers me a lot as an artist to be told that I can or cannot do certain things with my art. Obviously there are some boundaries I wont cross, but why is making a fat character thin such a huge issue? Why is my favorite black character not allowed to be even slightly "white-washed" without a titanic backlash? Recently there was a girl, Zamii070, who tried to commit suicide after being harassed and threatened with physical violence and rape nonstop just because she dared to draw characters from Steven Universe a bit thinner, or one of the black characters with straight hair.

    What do you guys think about all of this? Are the reactions of these fandoms justified? Are they being taken to the extreme? Should all of this really be the way it is?

    sig.gif

    People get so attached to things like their life depends on it. I mean, I can slightly understand. With my Aspergers, I get attached to subjects/fandoms easily. Here are a couple examples: Fairy Tail (Anime), FNAF, Gaming (Mainly Nintendo), and several other things. This isn't ENTIRELY my fault, though. As I stated earlier, people with Aspergers can get addicted/attached to things much more than other people usually do. This is not always a bad thing, but when it starts from a fandom and then turns into people attacking others for stupid reasons, it's just ridiculous. The situation you mentioned made me cringe when I heard about it about a month ago. People shouldn't react like this, it just gives them a bad reputation for the entire fandom as a whole. And this is coming from a FNAF fanboy. I'm not going to tell someone to get cancer or kill themself just because they don't like something I like or I don't like their fan-art. I'm not going to tell someone that, period. It just shows you how sensitive/childish people can sometimes be. @LinkSkywalker classifies himself as a feminist, perhaps he would have a more in-depth discussion about this.

    *insert something witty here*

    • Official Post
    Quote from Lexatom

    @LinkSkywalker classifies himself as a feminist, perhaps he would have a more in-depth discussion about this.

    Well, I don't actually identify myself as a feminist. I've referred to myself as a supporter of feminism, because as a movement and as a cause I believe that it is overall a source of positive change in the world. But I prefer never to actually classify myself by isms, ists, movements, and philosophies. It can be a useful shorthand in some situations, but generally it suffers from being painfully inexact language. If you tell 100 people that you're a communist, they'll think you mean 101 different things.

    Glancing over this tumblr post you linked, @Aphelion , yeah, I don't much like it either. This is everything I hate about discourse on the Internet. The shrill attitude, the demonizing of the other, the trivializing and mocking of dissenting opinions. As is so often the case, this isn't an attempt at discussion or communication, it's an attempt at entertainment. This post is targeted at people who already agree with the author, so they can shout "YEAH! FUCK EVERYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH US!" It's filled with intentionally inciting comments and phrasing, designed to get your passion up. If you agree, it makes you feel righteously angry at everyone who disagrees. If you disagree, it hurts your feelings. Makes you want to hit back, to send some flaming messages in reply. Messages that can be mocked and laughed at in turn. The bingo card is a particularly telling sign. One of those old internet tricks people use to dismiss arguments they don't want to deal with. If they can identify your argument before you make it, then they can pretend that you're pathetic and predictable without actually addressing your argument. Being smug has always been a poor substitute for being clever.

    That said, the main problem I see with this whole post is a matter of presentation, tone, and assumed authority. If you strip away all of the insults and the pettiness, there is an argument worth considering underneath. I'm not saying it's an argument I agree with, but it's an argument worth considering. I think it works best if you break it down into two basic questions:

    1. Can an act which is benign and even laudable when performed by a marginalized group become oppressive when performed by a dominant group?
    2. Can art be morally wrong.

    The first question is a fairly obvious "yes," I think. Consider an extreme example: It's 1850 in the American south. Slavery is going strong. A white guy calls a black guy a nigger. We can all agree that this was an act of oppression, yes? Now, same setting, but it's a black guy calling a white guy a cracker.* That's not oppression, that's rebellion! It's heroism! Stand up to that evil, slave-owning white guy, Mr. black guy! You go!

    *Nevermind the fact that the term "cracker" had not yet gained its modern meaning, and was actually a racist term white folks used to refer to other white folks from Czechoslovakia.

    Obviously that's a little different from drawing Ursula thin. But we can see how apparently identical actions (drawing Ariel fat / drawing Ursula thin) can take on a different moral weight depending on the social context. Whether or not the social context we currently live in justifies the Tumblr-person's argument is a whole separate discussion that I don't really want to delve into here. Long story short, my opinion is that while overweight people are a socially oppressed group in America, that oppression is honestly pretty mild. It's not right that fat people are treated the way they (we) are, but that doesn't make thin drawings of fat characters the equivalent of putting on a minstrel show.

    The question becomes even more complex when you move away from fat people and start talking about groups that still suffer truly serious forms of oppression in our society. People of color, LGBTQ individuals, etc.

    The second question is one of the most difficult I've ever wrestled with. Whether a work of art can be morally wrong by any metric is a question I've struggled with intensely over the last few months. A guy I know kinda blew my mind apart on the issue, and I haven't been able to put the pieces back together in a way that makes sense to me. I think, maybe, the problem is that we oversimplify the issue. We act as though you can look at one aspect of a piece of art, and pass moral judgement over everything connected with the art. When in fact, a single given work of art is merely the centerpiece of a complex network of choices. A network complex enough that you have to be kind of an arrogant dickweed to think you have the authority to pass moral judgement over it.

    Here are some of the conclusions I've come to on the subject.

    • Every piece of art, regardless of its merit, has a right to exist. Mein Kampf has a place in our society.
    • The moral standing of the artist does not affect the morality of the art. A painting of a flower is not evil simply because Hitler painted it. Purchasing the flower painting may be evil, if the money goes to support Hitler in any way. But the painting itself should not be censored or destroyed because of this.
    • An honest attempt at interpreting a piece of art is never a morally wrong thing to do. If you see a picture of thin Ursula and you believe it's an expression of hatred towards fat people, you're not a bad person for expressing that belief.
    • Enjoying a piece of art is never morally wrong, no matter how morally reprehensible the art is. If Mein Kampf is your favorite book, you're probably a bad person. But you're not a bad person because you enjoy Mein Kampf. You're a bad person because you hate Jews.
    • Honestly expressing what is inside of you through art is not wrong. If you hate fat people and you make a piece of art expressing your hatred of fat people, then the act of creating that art is not a morally wrong act. Hating fat people is a morally wrong thing to do. Sharing your art in an attempt to convince others to hate fat people is a morally wrong thing to do. Sharing your art in an attempt to hurt fat people is a morally wrong thing to do. But making the art has no moral weight.


    I think Tumblr lady's argument is ridiculous. But she's not wrong for expressing her interpretation. Honestly, it's kind of a good interpretation. If I saw a picture of thin Ursula my interpretation would probably be: "Oh. They like the character, they just don't like that she's an uggo fattie. Because they don't like fat people. I probably would not get along with this artist."

    I think the most anger-inducing thing about her post is an attitude which I think is best exemplified by this line:

    "So yeah, all in all I’m not afraid to tell people how they an and can’t interpret and draw a character in fan works"

    Nobody likes to be told what to do. They especially don't like to be told what to do by a teenie-bopper on the internet who has decided that they're the spearhead of some vaguely defined social change. Fortunately, no matter how strong her language is. No matter how many times she says that people "can't" make things she disagrees with, they can. She can get angry about it, but she can't actually stop it. In my experience, people like this are a very, very, very, very vocal minority. Not a lot of people actually think this way, and those who do think this way usually grow out of it.

    Being passionate about social justice should never be an excuse to treat people like shit and feel good about yourself for doing it.

    I don't see a reason why people fight and take positions , I think people should just come to an understanding why bother convincing others of your own view can't we just live they way we like and let others live the way they like ,
    I clearly see the picture here
    People should be allowed to draw whatever they like in whatever manner and at the same time there are people who are more than just serious about them so serious that sometimes they even marry them so yea it hurts them to see it like that, the reason problem occurs when people take absolute position, my mother always told me to put yourself in other persons shoes and than make a statement and I'm always trying to do it although I can fail at times , If I draw something and offend someone I would reply like this

    " I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings it was never my intent to hurt anyone feelings and I apologize for the discomfort I cause you , but as much as you have right to like this character fat/thin I also have a right to like it in whatever way I want , people have different tastes and likes and sometimes our love of art compels us to portray certain thing in a different way so my art work is just my way of expressing my liking to this character and I have every right to do it , it was not intended to hurt anyone "

    We should always accept others as they are I don't see a reason to argue

    Beauty is just the deception of the eye, if I cant see the ugliest and most beautiful are equal

    • Official Post

    The world would be a pretty sad place if no one ever took a position or tried to convince anybody else of anything.

    It's one thing to act with respect foe pthers. What you desceibe is complete apathy towards others.

    • Official Post

    I think how you interpret a piece of art speaks more about you than the artist. As someone who has drawn and wrote a bit as a hobby, I know that not all I do is a parallel of my own convictions. For a good story I need to create a character that has different points to mine but appropriate for his situation and this character might be the protagonist. It doesn't mean I have an agenda to promote things. Heck, some creations come in the spur of the moment and whatever we were thinking and feeling when they came to life is gone in a few hours. The idea of a perpetual stance with a piece is silly.

    Fanart is re-interpretation. It is bringing to life some vision of these characters, yet once again, this vision doesn't necessarily needs to align to our convictions. If I draw a slob, old and disgusting looking Link. Like LS said about the 101 interpretations would come from 100 that saw my work. Whatever was my intent shouldn't stop you from getting your own impressions on what my piece communicates. That is fine and good. That resonance is what makes people care about your art. it woke something in the public positive or negative is there.

    Quote from Aphelion

    What do you guys think about all of this? Are the reactions of these fandoms justified? Are they being taken to the extreme? Should all of this really be the way it is?

    To be honest I think it is an overreaction. I can understand where they are coming from but from the point they are trying to force people into "can" and "can't" they are crossing a line from where I cannot agree.

    There are many ways I can show my displeasure to a piece of Fanart or a Fanart trend. I won't put my money on people I don't like their work. I can talk about how I think it is wrong and why and I can try to promote the fanart I like and express why I like it so much, I can make contributions of my own and encourage others to consider doing this or that.

    For this Thinsula post it is just appalling she goes to this length to ridicule a person that is basically agreeing with her because her explanation happened to include sentiments geared towards the freedom of art. This person is on a high horse saying she is not asking much when she's basically demanding people to do anything except what she happens to disapprove.

    @Lexatom I hadn't really thought of people with disabilities being a factor here. I mean, it makes a lot of sense that they would be a key factor in addiction to certain media that the person finds favorable, as well as other things in life. Thank you for bringing that perspective. I'll have to remember to apply that thought process to anything I find offense with in the future.

    @LinkSkywalker Yeah, sorry about not replying, but I'm really trying to think of the best ways to reply. Especially to your post, since you went particularly in-depth. I'll do my best to reply without sounding like a belligerent nincompoop.

    "Long story short, my opinion is that while overweight people are a socially oppressed group in America, that oppression is honestly pretty mild. It's not right that fat people are treated the way they (we) are, but that doesn't make thin drawings of fat characters the equivalent of putting on a minstrel show."

    I hadn't thought of overweight people as a social group to be honest. I'll be frank and say that I've always expressed my concerns for overweight people (just as I have for anyone who I believe may be at a health risk, including my extremely skinny friend who weighs probably like 87 pounds). It's probably hypocritical, especially when I'm not exactly a beacon of well-living myself. What exactly do you mean by minstrel show in this context? Sorry, I'd like to get the exact meaning instead of interpreting it wrongly. :]

    "An honest attempt at interpreting a piece of art is never a morally wrong thing to do. If you see a picture of thin Ursula and you believe it's an expression of hatred towards fat people, you're not a bad person for expressing that belief."

    But that would be an assumption without knowing the artist's true intentions. I feel like that is a knee-jerk reaction that could be avoided, but probably never will be since the world is built on quick reactions. If I drew a thin version of Ursula and I did it merely based on the fact that I'm bad at drawing overweight people but wanted to draw her desperately because she's my favorite Disney villain, etc. I wouldn't appreciate people just assuming things about me, such as being a person who hates fat people. (Let me tell you something, drawing fat people is HARD. I've tried many times. :/) It would dissuade me from ever wanting to put my art up anywhere. It stymies the flow of creativity and makes people like myself reluctant to share artwork. I'd rather be critiqued on the actual composition of the art than the "moral" reasons behind it. I know you can't always get what you want though. :/

    "Fortunately, no matter how strong her language is. No matter how many times she says that people "can't" make things she disagrees with, they can. She can get angry about it, but she can't actually stop it. In my experience, people like this are a very, very, very, very vocal minority. Not a lot of people actually think this way, and those who do think this way usually grow out of it."

    Unfortunately, she can rally people to turn against the artists who draw things that she disagrees with and thus begins harassment and bullying. People can dig up personal information, spread it all over the internet, and very real crimes begin to happen to the person who was disagreed with. I'm not saying she would do it, but the fact that it has been done is scary. So even if she does grow out of it, or if "they" do, in the time that they are like this they are a dangerous group of people to tango with. They have "social justice and equality" on their side so they will very likely get in no to little trouble. As you mentioned in another part of your post,

    "Consider an extreme example: It's 1850 in the American south. Slavery is going strong. A white guy calls a black guy a nigger. We can all agree that this was an act of oppression, yes? Now, same setting, but it's a black guy calling a white guy a cracker.* That's not oppression, that's rebellion! It's heroism! Stand up to that evil, slave-owning white guy, Mr. black guy! You go!"

    It's this line of thought that allows them to be who they are with very little repercussions. They're rebelling against the norms. They're "fighting the good fight". They hurt a lot of people in their wake.

    @Kaynil

    "I think how you interpret a piece of art speaks more about you than the artist. As someone who has drawn and wrote a bit as a hobby, I know that not all I do is a parallel of my own convictions. For a good story I need to create a character that has different points to mine but appropriate for his situation and this character might be the protagonist. It doesn't mean I have an agenda to promote things. Heck, some creations come in the spur of the moment and whatever we were thinking and feeling when they came to life is gone in a few hours. The idea of a perpetual stance with a piece is silly."

    I agree with you. I have to make characters who are things that I don't agree with on a moral level for my art and stories to be good. It is this diversity that makes something so much more real that people can truly connect with. If every character was what I imagined was the "best" or "morally correct" my stories would be bland and unfulfilling.

    "For this Thinsula post it is just appalling she goes to this length to ridicule a person that is basically agreeing with her because her explanation happened to include sentiments geared towards the freedom of art. This person is on a high horse saying she is not asking much when she's basically demanding people to do anything except what she happens to disapprove."

    I also agree with this. You put the words together over all better than I could manage. She is on a high horse, even among her peers she tries to control what they think and do if it's something she slightly disagrees with. It's also done in an extremely aggressive and condescending manner. :/

    Overall, I think that art is meant to be uncontrolled. I think people have a place to express their innermost thoughts and creativity, as long as it is done responsibly and in the appropriate locations (nudity or extreme pornography in artwork should always be put behind a mature filter, etc) just to be courteous to other folks. I'm glad that everyone posted with their own viewpoints on the matter.

    sig.gif

Zelda Community is not affiliated with Nintendo®.
Copyright © 2000-2024, Zelda Cavern.
All Rights Reserved.