Content Creators and Speech and Expression

[Fallowfox]

So you're saying that disabled people who are off put by "Depression memes" that are need to shut up & tough up?. How thick to you have to be to even think this, The last thing someone who just recovered from depression is people half joking after offing themselves or how nothing get better. Fuck off.

I didn't say anything about memes Bigjackaal.
I also cannot even tell what you're trying to say here because the English isn't very clear.

This does bring me back to my point though. I suggested sensitivity could be an issue and your immediate response was to assume I hold views you strongly dislike and to tell me to fuck off.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Not to mention many I've interacted with few times. Are always the stereotype of what being a leftist is, Like the many "ACAB & BLM" types that pick fights while having a black & white viewpoint. Not to mention it super off putting having there sexuality or disability pushed down your throat with no room for any counter arguments or you own views. Since many just assume you right wing troll.

I understand! but you should reserve specific political commentary for DMs, it's not allowed here.

 

[oappo]

The first few posts more or less encapsulate how I feel about all this.

General context is really important here. People will have different expectations on someone's twitter than on their FA (or any other art account). Generally, your FA account is for art first and foremost. You're not expected to post,say, 7 journals a day detailing your thoughts on other things. So that's something to keep in mind.

I don’t think it’s possible or realistic to expect artists to not somehow touch on sensitive issues. Even something like what you choose to draw or not to draw can cause a lot of friction and drama. It should also... not be expected of artists to not have strong feelings on issues that are important to them.

this is also a key point. What you draw obviously cannot be helped and artist's own lives tend to trickle into their art accounts (like vent art or charity stuff). In that sense, expressing themselves is fine. At the same time, people can only tolerate so much extraneous stuff from you. This especially goes for sensitive stuff. There are a bunch of reasons why one might not want to see non-art stuff.

So generally, I think views and beliefs from artists are ok within reason. Some things will inevitably be brought up. Some are unnecessary, but ok if discussed in an appropriate way and at appropriate times. Some are just asking for trouble and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. It's sort of like school and teachers. My teacher talking about a fishing trip for 20 minutes is fine (if a bit offtopic, but hey, sometimes tangents can be nice). Him going on a political rant for 20 minutes is not.

Also, interesting thread, OP.

 

[Filter]

If an artist believes that expressing their personal opinions is worth potentially alienating their fans, that's their choice. Some even thrive off of notoriety. Especially if they do something so outrageous that it attracts attention. It's a fine line. They just need to realize that what they share might come back to bite them. They're potentially sacrificing their own success. Being naive about this fact won't stop them from losing followers or getting cancelled.

 

[quoting_mungo]

At the same time, people can only tolerate so much extraneous stuff from you. This especially goes for sensitive stuff. There are a bunch of reasons why one might not want to see non-art stuff.

So generally, I think views and beliefs from artists are ok within reason. Some things will inevitably be brought up. Some are unnecessary, but ok if discussed in an appropriate way and at appropriate times. Some are just asking for trouble and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. It's sort of like school and teachers. My teacher talking about a fishing trip for 20 minutes is fine (if a bit offtopic, but hey, sometimes tangents can be nice). Him going on a political rant for 20 minutes is not.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to draw parallels between a classroom and an artist’s content feed. The artist’s gallery (or Twitter account, or whatever) is their space, in a way a classroom cannot be a teacher’s space. The artist is the only one with an inherent right to curate their space (beyond whatever rules and requirements are put in place by their host.

You may find their thoughts extraneous, or not want to see anything from them but their art, but they have no obligation to accommodate you in that. If you have the means to set up filtering to exclude the parts of their content stream you don’t want to see, go ahead. If you can’t filter the content, it’s your choice whether you want to continue watching them or not.

Some people probably will stop watching. Others may choose to scroll past the content they don’t care for. That’s something that an artist who chooses to post more than just pretty pictures will have to accept. As long as the artist isn’t using their platform to harm people, it’s not really anyone’s place to demand they keep certain topics off of it.

 

[ConorHyena]

Art is political. Dividing it is almost impossible.

In the end, it's people's own accounts, and they can do with them what they wish. It's not my right (or anyone else aside from the platform owner and the lawmakers in the person's country of origin) to tell people what to say.

If you don't agree/don't want to see it - don't watch.

 

[KD142000]

Art is political. Dividing it is almost impossible.

In the end, it's people's own accounts, and they can do with them what they wish. It's not my right (or anyone else aside from the platform owner and the lawmakers in the person's country of origin) to tell people what to say.

If you don't agree/don't want to see it - don't watch.

Art is political if it has a political aim or viewpoint or image to present. Otherwise, it has another reason and purpose for existing.

But yes, don't watch or follow if you don't agree with someone's opinion...even though most times, it's not an opinion. Rather it's a bizarre and twisted delusion like 'gays are evil' and 'covid doesn't exist'. Both are disproved by simple logical thought, tolerance and facts...so I don't count those as opinions.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Art is political. Dividing it is almost impossible.

I strongly dislike the idea that all art is political, that reeks of totalitarianism.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

But yes, don't watch or follow if you don't agree with someone's opinion...even though most times, it's not an opinion.

Lol, I have many watchers of a completely different political persuasion, and most of my watchers I don't have a clue who they vote for nor do I care and I'm glad it's reciprocal. The activist side of watcherdom is THANKFULLY a very much overestimated phenomenon spawned and constantly kindled mostly by twitter, the Elephant Foot of the internet.

 

[Yakamaru]

I strongly dislike the idea that all art is political, that reeks of totalitarianism.

draws art of cute fluffy bunnies

"Did you know that this is a criticism of [REDACTED DUE TO POLITICS]"

 

[Frank Gulotta]

draws art of cute fluffy bunnies

"Did you know that this is a criticism of [REDACTED DUE TO POLITICS]"

[Insert dog-whistle of proxy-alt surrogate that needs to be quarantined for the well-being of the children] This is a hallmark of the systemic systems of structural institutions which codify our entire existence as mere bodies inhabited by human life, and consumers of restricted CO² emitting molecules

 

[ConorHyena]

I strongly dislike the idea that all art is political, that reeks of totalitarianism.

I favour a very restrictive art definition - in my opinion for something to be art it needs to at least have some sort of meta level.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

I favour a very restrictive art definition - in my opinion for something to be art it needs to at least have some sort of meta level.

Who decides what constitutes meta?

 

[TyraWadman]

Who decides what constitutes meta?

The same ones that cause the drama in the first place.
The viewer! XD

 

[Yakamaru]

The same ones that cause the drama in the first place.
The viewer! XD

Which.. Makes it 100% subjective. Got it.

 

[Bigjackaal48]

Or.... maybe he's just tired of looking at the same prosthelytizing junk all the time.... it *could* get annoying - especially when one just wants to have a good time with their followers, and not constantly deal with extra issues (like the ones described) being layered on top of all that; especially on a daily basis..... (just saying).

I had to nuke my feed since it decayed into people making near suicidal posts and self harm. Many artists/fans seem to come of dense about that upsetting disabled furs, I almost flipped my lid when saw "I'm being sensitive". I have Dysgraphia it's hard to type without mistakes.

 

[oappo]

I don’t think it’s appropriate to draw parallels between a classroom and an artist’s content feed. The artist’s gallery (or Twitter account, or whatever) is their space, in a way a classroom cannot be a teacher’s space. The artist is the only one with an inherent right to curate their space (beyond whatever rules and requirements are put in place by their host.

That parallel wasn't about the entire topic, but more about the types of topics that might come up. Specifically, fishing is what I'd consider unnecessary but ok, but politics I'd consider something to avoid.

Some people probably will stop watching. Others may choose to scroll past the content they don’t care for. That’s something that an artist who chooses to post more than just pretty pictures will have to accept. As long as the artist isn’t using their platform to harm people, it’s not really anyone’s place to demand they keep certain topics off of it.

Absolutely. I'm not saying artists have some sort of obligation to run their accounts one way. Ultimately, how they govern their account is their choice.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

The same ones that cause the drama in the first place.
The viewer! XD

Well... there's something else to that, overtly political art is not meta at all. So I don't understand why only art that conceals a political meaning should be awarded artistic value, that sounds oddly specific. I can cite quite a few art pieces that are blatant about snobbing politics altogether, like Hemrann Hesse's the Glass Bead Game and nobody would dream of denying it the status of art piece

 

[Attaman]

I will point out that in a world wherein people believe... uh, "Humans deserve rights", "Mental illnesses are real", "Climates can be changed", and even more abstract things like names, colors worn by somebody, or bodily gestures can be considered politics / political, "Art isn't political" is a strange hill to die on.

If the contextual use of "He" or "She" or such can be considered political (to the point that some users in here have actively petitioned mods to make respectful use of such as "Bringing Politics to FAF" and get users infracted / banned for as much), I'm curious to hear the arguments that Art isn't political.

Likewise I feel like there's... shall we say, more than coincidence that some people keep trying to conflate "Artist is [minority] and doesn't want to associate with people who think [same minority] should be brutally tortured / killed / made to suffer for eternity" as "Artist shooting their self in their foot and giving up opportunities to soap box". To repeat my prior post for those in the back: The artist isn't going to care if you think "They're one of the good ones, also I have money for them if they'd just take my commission". There are things people will not just look the other way over because $$$ and "It'll give you exposure!".

 

[Punji]

I'm curious to hear the arguments that Art isn't political.

I mean, a picture of a femboy fox happily getting railed by a piece of silicon is absolutely considered art by this fandom and is entirely without a political motivation.

 

[Jaredthefox92]

There can be a variety of reasons for this, which I've found on Deviantart as well.
1.People are not created equal in the head, some people simply cannot show the tact or discern their trade from their viewpoints.
2.They could do it for popularity, yes this is a problem with Tumblr, Twitter, ect ect.
3.They could be like Ken Penders or Andrew Dobson, hacks who want brownie points for being woke or go with the trends.
4.They can be venting, especially if it happens to be they have an issue with a viewpoint.
5.Some people do this because their viewpoints are protected by big tech, but you probably already get that notion.
6.Controversy and drama causes attention, people are naturally wired on the negative rather than the positives, and thus they want more exposure. (Petty, but it's true.)

There's a lot of factors that can go into this.

 

[Jaredthefox92]

I will point out that in a world wherein people believe... uh, "Humans deserve rights", "Mental illnesses are real", "Climates can be changed", and even more abstract things like names, colors worn by somebody, or bodily gestures can be considered politics / political, "Art isn't political" is a strange hill to die on.

If the contextual use of "He" or "She" or such can be considered political (to the point that some users in here have actively petitioned mods to make respectful use of such as "Bringing Politics to FAF" and get users infracted / banned for as much), I'm curious to hear the arguments that Art isn't political.

Likewise I feel like there's... shall we say, more than coincidence that some people keep trying to conflate "Artist is [minority] and doesn't want to associate with people who think [same minority] should be brutally tortured / killed / made to suffer for eternity" as "Artist shooting their self in their foot and giving up opportunities to soap box". To repeat my prior post for those in the back: The artist isn't going to care if you think "They're one of the good ones, also I have money for them if they'd just take my commission". There are things people will not just look the other way over because $$$ and "It'll give you exposure!".

I think art is in the middle, while I have a lot of non-political work, I do have themes in the background. Does this mean I think you should politicize everything under the sun? No, in fact I believe your art should mimic your comprehension on matters. Bad art that is meant to "shock or upset" is very cringy. BUT, I am also for satire and things meant to promote an idea through a medium. My villains in my stories are for the most part, fanatics when it comes to the political spectrum. Characters like Grief are socialists and far-left while characters like Amanda are far-right, but I don't FOCUS on these aspects, it's just part of their outlooks on life. The idea is that instead they're villains for other reasons, but they just have a certain viewpoint. I am into old stories like Animal Farm, that sort of "teaches" a metaphor or something through a out there concept.

 

[Attaman]

I think art is in the middle, while I have a lot of non-political work,

I'll point out that the reason I say "I'd like to see the arguments" is that...

Like...

I'll just go with one very basic example. Does (royal / general) your art feature the use of pink and or blue to denote any degree of femininity and / or masculinity? Either consciously or, if you stare at your (again, general / royal your, not aimed at you specifically) gallery long enough to vaguely some sort of pattern, unconsciously?

Political. Because there's a whole history of color association and whatnot and how / why they were used.

This is not to argue that Politics will be a significant part of any piece of artwork, nor that they will be conscious / intentional or of a political subject that anybody will particularly take interest in (You are probably not going to get scaldingly hot takes dropping Ancient Egypt controversy on which particular regional interpretation of a god or gods is accurate, for example). Mainly that... frankly one would have better odds defining what is or isn't speech than they would claiming Art isn't Political. And one can make a lot of arguments for what constitutes as speech.

Hell, for one more bonus example of Political Art: Just where you choose to post your art can potentially be - in and of itself - Political. We've had people explicitly refuse to post their content on sites like Twitter, Reddit, or so-on because of disagreements (or perceived disagreements) with the community (or perceived community), and "Intentionally do not share your art in [x] medium / forum" is a fairly textbook example. At this point the nature of the artwork itself is utterly irrelevant, yet it's still Political due to as much.

One could argue that this is a dilution of the word Politics... but if so the blame's probably not going to land in the lap (or timeframe) people think it will. The Degeneracy of Today's Youth (TM) is a thing that we literally have written records of people going on about all the way back to the days of the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

 

[Jaredthefox92]

I'll point out that the reason I say "I'd like to see the arguments" is that...

Like...

I'll just go with one very basic example. Does (royal / general) your art feature the use of pink and or blue to denote any degree of femininity and / or masculinity? Either consciously or, if you stare at your (again, general / royal your, not aimed at you specifically) gallery long enough to vaguely some sort of pattern, unconsciously?

Political. Because there's a whole history of color association and whatnot and how / why they were used.

This is not to argue that Politics will be a significant part of any piece of artwork, nor that they will be conscious / intentional or of a political subject that anybody will particularly take interest in (You are probably not going to get scaldingly hot takes dropping Ancient Egypt controversy on which particular regional interpretation of a god or gods is accurate, for example). Mainly that... frankly one would have better odds defining what is or isn't speech than they would claiming Art isn't Political. And one can make a lot of arguments for what constitutes as speech.

Hell, for one more bonus example of Political Art: Just where you choose to post your art can potentially be - in and of itself - Political. We've had people explicitly refuse to post their content on sites like Twitter, Reddit, or so-on because of disagreements (or perceived disagreements) with the community (or perceived community), and "Intentionally do not share your art in [x] medium / forum" is a fairly textbook example. At this point the nature of the artwork itself is utterly irrelevant, yet it's still Political due to as much.

One could argue that this is a dilution of the word Politics... but if so the blame's probably not going to land in the lap (or timeframe) people think it will. The Degeneracy of Today's Youth (TM) is a thing that we literally have written records of people going on about all the way back to the days of the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

No, Cyrus is pink and Helga is blue. My characters are all sorts of colors:

Artwork Gallery for Jaredthefox92 -- Fur Affinity [dot] net

Hey, it's Jaredthefox92 from Deviantart. I just made this account because I forgot about my old one.. . Check out my Discord if you ...

www.furaffinity.net

 

[Yakamaru]

sees all the porn on e621

Hmm yes indeed. This fox getting railed by 14 werewolves is clearly political and is some sort of commentary.

Ooooor maybe, just maybe, you need to stop shoving politics into everything. It's creepy and disturbing. Stop it.