• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Content Creators and Speech and Expression

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Conor said 'Art is political', and disagreed with you about the definition of what 'Art' even is.

So I suspect you are both talking about different things anyway, Frank.

Do you concede that you cannot deduce, from these opinions, whether or not somebody is 'totalitarian' ?
He even clarified that in fact, he did mean by that, that all art is political, which is what I disagree with, because it leads straight to the totalitarian notion that all art is propaganda (which conor also agreed with). So if anyone's not talking about the same thing here, it's you :D
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
No, Cyrus is pink and Helga is blue. My characters are all sorts of colors:

I'll point out right now that the reverse could similarly hold true (ex: somebody using pink on a masculine character and blue on a feminine), or even being non-standardized with both (ex: using colors seemingly at random with zero regard for presentation, orientation, et al). One can make fairly convincing arguments for all three (and other!) combinations being political.

This, again, is not to say that this necessarily means that all art is purposefully, actively political. Sometimes somebody just draws something and it turns out unconscious things peek through if you look hard enough and know what you're looking for. It doesn't mean they intended their "Friends, but Furry" webcomic" to be an actively political work commenting on the history of color usage or the divide between fictional expectations and reality or any of that jazz. It doesn't mean that the picture of an androgynous wolf going to town on a sextoy must be a cutting metaphor or critique of societal expectations. Just that it's fairly easy, using this as another way to express as much,
Art means to the artist what they're trying to express.

Art means to you what you think the artist is trying to express.

The two may not (and need not) be the same thing.
To argue that Art is Political. Art involves expression. Expression, by its very nature, involves a transference and / or interpretation of ideas.

Even so, I don't see how that's relevant.
Which part, the "Art is Political" or "Who to blame" one?

The "Art is Political" part is mostly relevant as people have increasingly been stomping their feet that "No, Art isn't Political! Keep Politics out of Art!" Which... is kind of like saying "Keep wet out of water!" It cannot be done. One can argue to not be overtly Political with Art, which in an argument (one I wouldn't necessarily agree with, but one that can be made), but to argue Art isn't (can't / shouldn't be!) Political is effectively telling people to stuff it with right of expression. Something that some of the people in here, ironically, have made / participated in a thread in General Discussion before praising as one of the greatest glories of Western Civilization.

As for the "Who to blame?" That's relevant because more often than not people immediately try to blame this on a... shall we say, certain side of the political spectrum. As enforcing an agenda, being weak-willed shills in need of safe spaces and whatnot. And it's kind of important to sweep the wind out from beneath those sails immediately that it wasn't artists or rights advocates or any of them who tried to make things like "Should we draw non-idealized bodytypes in art" or "What color should the sky be" a matter of politics.

Things like colour associations are not directly political to a large degree in the year 2021.
We had people on here actively deriding the American Psychiatric Association as a bunch of detached egg-heads for daring to have thoughts on Gender Studies / Expectations, and others presenting counter arguments. Color association - and particularly how it applies to such things - is very much still political and relevant to the present day.
If everything is political, then that's the baseline of our lives.
Yes. And some people don't like that because of the scrutiny / responsibility it puts on people. If, for example, somebody can't just say "People who like Carrots are demons and should be put to the torch", at least not without suffering societal consequences, they get angry and say "Politics ruining my hobbies".

As always, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than "Is it politics / are we cheapening the word?"
On the other hand, in many things (including entertainment & recreation), real-life politics are often in the background or irrelevant.
I'll note that Politics are just as present in many of these too (if not moreso), we just... again, have a lot of people who consciously or unconsciously filter it out.

For a very basic pair of examples: I play Warhammer, I play D&D. Those two things are hilariously, overtly political. We just... tend not to think about it. And actively reinterpret / change them as desired. A lot of people outright ignore D&D's Racial Alignment, for example, while others demand it as necessary to the Hobby.
 

ConorHyena

nazi hunter
He even clarified that in fact, he did mean by that, that all art is political, which is what I disagree with, because it leads straight to the totalitarian notion that all art is propaganda (which conor also agreed with). So if anyone's not talking about the same thing here, it's you :D
I'm just going to out myself as the feared totalitarian I am, by quoting myself

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.

You can practically feel the totalitarianism oooze from these statements.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
I'm just going to out myself as the feared totalitarian I am, by quoting myself



You can practically feel the totalitarianism oooze from these statements.
All I said was that this idea leads to totalitarianism (and has a pretty good track record of doing exactly that), why even get so defensive? XD
 

Jaredthefox92

Banned
Banned
I'll point out right now that the reverse could similarly hold true (ex: somebody using pink on a masculine character and blue on a feminine), or even being non-standardized with both (ex: using colors seemingly at random with zero regard for presentation, orientation, et al). One can make fairly convincing arguments for all three (and other!) combinations being political.

This, again, is not to say that this necessarily means that all art is purposefully, actively political. Sometimes somebody just draws something and it turns out unconscious things peek through if you look hard enough and know what you're looking for. It doesn't mean they intended their "Friends, but Furry" webcomic" to be an actively political work commenting on the history of color usage or the divide between fictional expectations and reality or any of that jazz. It doesn't mean that the picture of an androgynous wolf going to town on a sextoy must be a cutting metaphor or critique of societal expectations. Just that it's fairly easy, using this as another way to express as much,

To argue that Art is Political. Art involves expression. Expression, by its very nature, involves a transference and / or interpretation of ideas.


Which part, the "Art is Political" or "Who to blame" one?

The "Art is Political" part is mostly relevant as people have increasingly been stomping their feet that "No, Art isn't Political! Keep Politics out of Art!" Which... is kind of like saying "Keep wet out of water!" It cannot be done. One can argue to not be overtly Political with Art, which in an argument (one I wouldn't necessarily agree with, but one that can be made), but to argue Art isn't (can't / shouldn't be!) Political is effectively telling people to stuff it with right of expression. Something that some of the people in here, ironically, have made / participated in a thread in General Discussion before praising as one of the greatest glories of Western Civilization.

As for the "Who to blame?" That's relevant because more often than not people immediately try to blame this on a... shall we say, certain side of the political spectrum. As enforcing an agenda, being weak-willed shills in need of safe spaces and whatnot. And it's kind of important to sweep the wind out from beneath those sails immediately that it wasn't artists or rights advocates or any of them who tried to make things like "Should we draw non-idealized bodytypes in art" or "What color should the sky be" a matter of politics.


We had people on here actively deriding the American Psychiatric Association as a bunch of detached egg-heads for daring to have thoughts on Gender Studies / Expectations, and others presenting counter arguments. Color association - and particularly how it applies to such things - is very much still political and relevant to the present day.

Yes. And some people don't like that because of the scrutiny / responsibility it puts on people. If, for example, somebody can't just say "People who like Carrots are demons and should be put to the torch", at least not without suffering societal consequences, they get angry and say "Politics ruining my hobbies".

As always, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than "Is it politics / are we cheapening the word?"

I'll note that Politics are just as present in many of these too (if not moreso), we just... again, have a lot of people who consciously or unconsciously filter it out.

For a very basic pair of examples: I play Warhammer, I play D&D. Those two things are hilariously, overtly political. We just... tend not to think about it. And actively reinterpret / change them as desired. A lot of people outright ignore D&D's Racial Alignment, for example, while others demand it as necessary to the Hobby.

If you're looking to find fault, you're going to find fault in everything. That's called being paranoid. We're in an age where an idiot who puts super glue in their hair calls it racism and people ban syrup bottles because it hurts their fee fees. Anyways, on my end I don't think of politics or gender with my characters, most being giant monsters who squash people at whim and quite frankly couldn't care less about what humans or people weaker than themselves feel about their designs. In fact, I try to go as extravagant as possible due to the fact that many of them are utterly narcissistic monsters who want to make the entire story about themselves, (literally this is Ophelia and Ubel's gimmick.) Honestly, I've seen many characters out there in the Sonic fandom with all sorts of colors, Blaze is lavender, Knuckles is red Amy and Sonic yeah you can make that argument but Sega had that since the late 80's for them. That hawk guy is green, ect ect.

My characters generally are given colors what I simply think looks extravagant or flashy, generally because they're villains and they have to fit a theme of being noticeable. Human politics are nothing in their world, considering characters like Grief literally doesn't care on who he steps on when he stomps through cities. Even gender is warped, Grief will send thousands of women to die on the front lines in battle and not care an iota. Under the Order, there's compulsory female service to the army, like in the Soviet Union. The only "discrimination" would be that women are not put in heavy weapons teams, simply because the men have to carry heavy weapons and they're not named Scylla Bradanska, so they don't have super strength to carry heavy caliber mobile emplacements. Also, I have several characters who would be considered non-Caucasian in the story serving under Grief and his sister. The theme of my story is the state doesn't give a shit about you, but you have to go die for it. There's themes of what the Soviet Union was like. In my other universe, gods and deities are the same. They'll send their followers to spill blood in their name, but they have cultists from all over the planet Mobius.

I don't see how Warhammer is "political", Warhammer fantasy takes place in seven realms with the undead, orcs, and whatever the hell they have now, but Warhammer 40,000 politics have NOTHING to do with modern day ones. It's in a dystopian future where one idiot blew up planets because he wasn't given parades, it's a universe where being psychic can cause demons to spew out of your head and every man and child have to constantly die for some skeleton on a big chair. How you see Warhammer as political I'll not understand, considering I see it as "well you fight or you die with the army you pick".
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
I'm just going to throw one more very basic example out there:

Some people in here have said they disagree with the idea that art can potentially be classified as Propaganda. That it's silly to argue as much. Terrifying, even.

There has been repeated furor in here by these same users about "Blackwashing" pre-existing characters being racist and pushing an agenda, how artists are 'enabling' "Morbid obesity" with inclusion of non-standard body-types.

These two positions are inherently contradictory. If art can't be classified as propaganda, then the whole second paragraph is moot shouting at clouds. The people complaining about "disrespect to the original content creator" are just stamping their feet making a tantrum over meaningless images, the people warbling about the inclusion of a non-idealized character upset because it isn't their favorite flavor of ice cream. Conversely, if the second is classified as Propaganda... then that both gives a blatant example of exactly what people are really talking about in this thread when they bring up politics, as well as shoots readily in the foot the idea that something as utterly basic as "Includes a character of above-average weight somewhere in the piece" can't be construed as political.

If you're looking to find fault, you're going to find fault in everything.
Which is kind of the point. If somebody is saying they don't like people expressing things because they're inserting politics, they are going to find something no matter what. Artist removes the chunky background character? "They're Twitter-posting, you know what that means." They post it on other art-sites in response, maybe even make a real life gallery? "It's all Cal-Art". Etcetera, etcetera.

I don't see how Warhammer is "political",
For the most basic and least controversial: Orcs / Orks were directly inspired by British Soccer Hooligans. Chaos, especially Slaanesh, was inspired a lot by 80's and 90's culture and counter-culture movements.

That right there makes them political, even without getting into the nitty-gritty of assorted Black Library writers and the debates about if the Imperium of Man is justified and all that.

Same reason that Tolkien is political (spend five minutes looking at his descriptions for Orcs / Goblins and compare / contrast with WWI and WWII propaganda posters, for example), Starcraft is political (look at the blatant and not-so-blatant difference between Confederacy and UED portrayals, for example), and so-on.

This isn't to say those are necessarily their main thrusts (Warhammer, at the end of the day, is focused predominantly as a medium in which to play wargames and sell models / rules, or with Black Library to sell books), but it's present in them.
 

Jaredthefox92

Banned
Banned
I'm just going to throw one more very basic example out there:

Some people in here have said they disagree with the idea that art can potentially be classified as Propaganda. That it's silly to argue as much. Terrifying, even.

There has been repeated furor in here by these same users about "Blackwashing" pre-existing characters being racist and pushing an agenda, how artists are 'enabling' "Morbid obesity" with inclusion of non-standard body-types.

These two positions are inherently contradictory. If art can't be classified as propaganda, then the whole second paragraph is moot shouting at clouds. The people complaining about "disrespect to the original content creator" are just stamping their feet making a tantrum over meaningless images, the people warbling about the inclusion of a non-idealized character upset because it isn't their favorite flavor of ice cream. Conversely, if the second is classified as Propaganda... then that both gives a blatant example of exactly what people are really talking about in this thread when they bring up politics, as well as shoots readily in the foot the idea that something as utterly basic as "Includes a character of above-average weight somewhere in the piece" can't be construed as political.


Which is kind of the point. If somebody is saying they don't like people expressing things because they're inserting politics, they are going to find something no matter what. Artist removes the chunky background character? "They're Twitter-posting, you know what that means." They post it on other art-sites in response, maybe even make a real life gallery? "It's all Cal-Art". Etcetera, etcetera.


For the most basic and least controversial: Orcs / Orks were directly inspired by British Soccer Hooligans. Chaos, especially Slaanesh, was inspired a lot by 80's and 90's culture and counter-culture movements.

That right there makes them political, even without getting into the nitty-gritty of assorted Black Library writers and the debates about if the Imperium of Man is justified and all that.

Same reason that Tolkien is political (spend five minutes looking at his descriptions for Orcs / Goblins and compare / contrast with WWI and WWII propaganda posters, for example), Starcraft is political (look at the blatant and not-so-blatant difference between Confederacy and UED portrayals, for example), and so-on.

This isn't to say those are necessarily their main thrusts (Warhammer, at the end of the day, is focused predominantly as a medium in which to play wargames and sell models / rules, or with Black Library to sell books), but it's present in them.

Yeah, I tend to ignore those people. Then again, I couldn't give less of a rats ass if someone got TRIGGERED by my own works. If people find fault, it's in their silly heads. It's my silly and over-the-top batshit insane story that I make. Then again, I'm not Marvel/DC/Sega/ect.

I only have one chubby character, but my entire story is a war story so you have characters who literally are sent back into basic training until they lose the weight, and this is part of the Order's tactics of being "faster" and agile while moving in combat compared to just carrying heavy armor. This is not discrimination, it's simply that most of my characters have to be peak physically active to even survive in my story where humans and Egg Empire soldiers are shooting at them. I'm slightly overweight myself, but I don't try to politicize it and I am currently trying to diet and get recreation in the woods I live in. If people get upset over this, it's their problem, not mine.

I actually main Orks on tabletop, I like to think they're a bunch of rednecks (because I'm an American) with fast red hotrods and lots of guns. To me, their stereotype of RED GOEZ FASTA and MORE DAKKA is part of their charm. Then again, I always like redneck jokes. (Except for the lack of intellect thing, but hey that's simply because I go to college). Anyways, Orks are funny and since I'm close to being that stereotype, I roll with it in my own army. Then again, I get comedic relief. I also main chaos, but I have Death Guard. I never saw Slaanesh as anything other than old school 80's rock. Not my type of army, but as far as "sexist/racist/ablest" I never thought of that. Chaos to me is laughably a-political. It's chaos, it doesn't care what society thinks. If it "offends" people trying to put society on what is basically magic space Chernobyl with tentacles and spikey people then so be it.

The thing about the Imperium: It's a hellhole and meant by every piece and regard to be utterly fucked up. That's the theme. Yes, it is humanity at it's worst, and that's the theme. It's literally coming out of the fall of humanity and trying to make heads or tails in such a screwed up universe that the only way to survive is to be as screwed up as well. The Imperium is utterly bonkers, because the universe is utterly bonkers.

True, but then that's Tolkien and if you know anything about writing, a lot of time people take the themes of the day and portray their viewpoints. For instance Dune has some anti-nuclear themes, Star Wars has WW2 themes, Warhammer has the threat of Chernobyl (because at the time that happened), ect ect. That's just the human condition portraying what people feel and know at the time into media.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
As a note, I'm not snipping the stuff prior to this to try and "Gotcha" or anything like that. I'm just focusing on this particular paragraph as it's particularly relevant to the point I'm attempting to make:
True, but then that's Tolkien and if you know anything about writing, a lot of time people take the themes of the day and portray their viewpoints. For instance Dune has some anti-nuclear themes, Star Wars has WW2 themes, Warhammer has the threat of Chernobyl (because at the time that happened), ect ect. That's just the human condition portraying what people feel and know at the time into media.
Such things were contemporary, yes, though that makes them no less Political. Tolkien, for example, explicitly acknowledged as much with his work and later made various attempts to change things around (such as stating how he regretted how he came up with and portrayed his Orcs, going on to say that they participated in both sides of the Last Alliance, and so-on). Star Wars' anti-fascist commentary arguably remains contemporary up to this day (either because one believes such is still an on-going concern, or because it's a theme that was repeated in the 00's Prequel Trilogy and 10's Sequel Trilogy).

Politics is quite prevalent in a lot of things. Sometimes it's conscious, and sometimes - playing back into "what people feel, know about, and is going on around them" - it's just unconscious put in there. People have made some pretty poignant commentary about even basic stuff like the Simpson' quality of life, for example, with how in the span of its run the Simpsons' home life has gone from "Not particularly far off from a solid-but-also-not-stable middle class lifestyle" to "fantastically rich" despite literally nothing having changed.

Politics. What can you say?
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
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.

Suicidal content and self harm posts are not allowed on Twitter. You should report these to Twitter and their staff will remove them.
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
In my opinion, art certainly can be political, but most often isn't.

A lot of artistic creations and endeavours, especially so for we furries, is entirely meant to be taken at face value as a piece with more or less objective quality and the pleasure of viewing it. (Cute, cool, pretty, lustful, etc.) Many works will often go deeper and explore emotion or more specialized concepts in story-telling.

These are not political concepts.

Two anthro characters hugging in a park is a nice image and is appreciable by many. There are no inherently political messages or motivations behind this. To say any such things exist is to be inserting them where they do not exist. This is subjective at best and flawed at worst.

Pulling at straws to come up with a reason why such a piece has a political motivation or message is foolish. It may subjectively inspire these thoughts or feelings in some but they are by no means the objective truth, and to say any given image is political because of any little reason is just not correct, in my opinion.

I personally believe the piece literally means what the creator meant for it to mean, and anything else is merely subjective interpretations of it. Saying or implying the creator "subconsciously" used political motivations or concepts is an insult to the artist by saying the random subjective viewer knows more about the person and their own creation than the artist does himself.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
In my opinion, art certainly can be political, but most often isn't.

A lot of artistic creations and endeavours, especially so for we furries, is entirely meant to be taken at face value as a piece with more or less objective quality and the pleasure of viewing it. (Cute, cool, pretty, lustful, etc.) Many works will often go deeper and explore emotion or more specialized concepts in story-telling.

These are not political concepts.

Two anthro characters hugging in a park is a nice image and is appreciable by many. There are no inherently political messages or motivations behind this. To say any such things exist is to be inserting them where they do not exist. This is subjective at best and flawed at worst.

Pulling at straws to come up with a reason why such a piece has a political motivation or message is foolish. It may subjectively inspire these thoughts or feelings in some but they are by no means the objective truth, and to say any given image is political because of any little reason is just not correct, in my opinion.

I personally believe the piece literally means what the creator meant for it to mean, and anything else is merely subjective interpretations of it. Saying or implying the creator "subconsciously" used political motivations or concepts is an insult to the artist by saying the random subjective viewer knows more about the person and their own creation than the artist does himself.

This is a strawman.

'Art is political' was mentioned because the expectation that political expression and artistic expression should not coincide is a futile one; Art has been used to make political points since time immemorial and will continue to do so. If somebody hopes they will never come across political discourse in the Art they consume, then they hope in vain.

So that provides a neat and concise answer to the OP question: If you want to eat tuna, you're going to get bones.

This argument does not imply or require that every beano comic that was ever published has a political commentary (although some of them did; I'm going to challenge people to go and find them. :} ).
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
This is a strawman.

'Art is political' was mentioned because the expectation that political expression and artistic expression should not coincide is a futile one; Art has been used to make political points since time immemorial and will continue to do so. If somebody hopes they will never come across political discourse in the Art they consume, then they hope in vain.

So that provides a neat and concise answer to the OP question: If you want to eat tuna, you're going to get bones.

This argument does not imply or require that every beano comic that was ever published has a political commentary (although some of them did; I'm going to challenge people to go and find them. :} ).
Oh Fallow, don't come complaining to me about strawmen. :p I can directly quote some posts which would fit my response if you'd like, thought a cursory glance ought to be sufficient.

Again, sure it can be used politically, but it's not the basic intention of art and isn't the primary motivation of most artists.

If I only consume oil paintings of domestic cats I shouldn't see any politics. I follow quite a large number of artists on FA already, and rarely if ever do I see a political piece. I find my own answer is more appropriate with regards to the OP.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
Art is expression and expression is speech. If the artist intends to create art with a political meaning, that's fine. If you interpret art to have a political meaning, that's also fine.

Where we run into problems is when certain political arguments are considered "objectively wrong." Art that depicts criminal acts being done to a minority group, for instance: is it glorifying such evil? Or is it bringing into the light something that normally only happens outside the public eye? That's not always obvious.
 

ConorHyena

nazi hunter
If I only consume oil paintings of domestic cats I shouldn't see any politics. I follow quite a large number of artists on FA already, and rarely if ever do I see a political piece. I find my own answer is more appropriate with regards to the OP.
However that's the beauty of a (potential) meta level. It can be ignored/missed by those simply intersted in taking the piece of art by face value.

Both your examples can be turned into a political statement, either the anthros hugging, or your cat example - if the artist is willing to appropriate a meta level to them to some degree.

While at the same time, the meta level can be overlooked - it can (and has been used in times of totalitarianism) to communicate hidden meanings that the uninitiated do not understand.
 

KimberVaile

Officially elected and actual ruler of FAF
Hoo boy, it's already boiled down into an argument over semantics. That's when you know you're in a quality debate, when people start arguing semantics and connotation at you.
 
Last edited:
@Bigjackaal48 Well, exactly... I totally get what you're saying.

It's largely about that other user (on this thread) as well as some on Twitter perhaps - who've been making assumptions about the situations you were encountering. And - you simply don't want to see and deal with any of that content anymore..... that's not being too sensitive.

And, if it's bothersome (and possibly offensive) to you, then.... you have every right to not want to see it anymore and continue to interact with those users that continue to do it.
---------------------
And as a side note, I might add - that same user on this thread (criticizing your English) - is just plain tacky to do also, in my opinion; without knowing the full facts about your situation. (I think you write fine, by the way).... and no one should feel the need to apologize to people for that, either.

Ironically, I easily could say that dude/ones I unfollow on Twitter are the sensitive ones. I'm within my rights to block/unfollow if they get annoying in many ways, Since many in my feed would try "Cancel" anyone that disagreed or showed actual self awareness. Because I'm still perplexed at how posting "Depression memes" will help anything or mentally healthy?. For people who claim they don't like toxic or drama sure are the biggest drama starters there. lol

The typing bit annoyed me because it was a ad hominem, while putting zero effort on reading the post.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Ironically, I easily could say that dude/ones I unfollow on Twitter are the sensitive ones. I'm within my rights to block/unfollow if they get annoying in many ways, Since many in my feed would try "Cancel" anyone that disagreed or showed actual self awareness. Because I'm still perplexed at how posting "Depression memes" will help anything or mentally healthy?. For people who claim they don't like toxic or drama sure are the biggest drama starters there. lol

The typing bit annoyed me because it was a ad hominem, while putting zero effort on reading the post.

I will say this Bigjackaal.

It wasn't clear in your first post, where you said you disliked 'leftist' people 'pushing their sexuality and disability down your throat', that you were objecting to content promoting suicide.

Content promoting suicide is not allowed on Twitter and is not legal in many countries- so of course you are entitled to oppose that.
 

Lucyfur

United forever in friendship and labour
Banned
To more so respond to the start of this thread.
Personally I like when artists express their beliefs and what they hold as their ideals, because I like to know who it is I may be supporting.
If you hold beliefs, opinions, views that for instance are bigoted than I want nothing to do with you or your art even if you may be super talented and would rather commission someone else who isnt such a vile being.

So yeah content creators should proudly display their beliefs and views and allow their base to decide whether or not they are worth their support.
 

TheCynicalViet

Well-Known Member
Well people have agency and individuality and such should be allowed to use that agency and individuality to express their individual beliefs.

My only issue is when you insert inappropriate commentary that ends up ruining an established story that you created. For example, my comic deals with political topics but not modern political topics. So inserting modern political commentary into my story or creating analogues for modern political topics would not make sense and ruin the immersion I set up for my readers. To try and illustrate this, it is perfectly okay for me to draw my character holding a banner that says "BLM" or "Trans rights are human rights" because that drawing is standalone and exists outside of the canon story but it would not be okay for me to draw them doing that IN THE STORY because it wouldn't make sense for that to happen.

But if you make something that exists in a vacuum or is specifically created to espouse your beliefs then go wild.

EDIT: I should probably add another example to further illustrate what I meant by "ruin the story" since the example I used with my comic was kinda vague. So imagine if you were watching Joker (2019) and after Arthur shoots MurRAY in the head, instead of the camera cutting to the technical difficulties screen, Joaquin Phoenix walks up and faces the camera and lectures the viewer about...let's say veganism since Joaquin Phoenix is an adamant animal rights activist for the rest of the movies runtime. That would undoubtedly ruin the movie.
 
Last edited:

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
I'll note that there's quite a bit of debate and controversy regarding Thermian Arguments (see: When people go "Oh, [very awkward and / or controversial thing] is justified in setting because [thing that artist purposefully chose to include in it]"), so one's mileage may vary in trying to rely on them. For example I'm not about to give the time of day to somebody using Thermian Arguments to defend why the themes and messages of works like Rise of the Shield Hero or Gate are justified. Or to use another, more 'Western' example, the inclusion of things such as D&D's Racial Alignment system that they for some reason just can't resist bringing back every other edition for some reason or another.

Yes, as author you totally have thematic and in-universe reasons for why the evil elves are a bunch a BDSM-obsessed matriarchal sadists who tend to covertly meddle in and undermine "good" nations' affairs, were cursed to have (in earlier editions) coal-black skin as punishment for their divine betrayal, and as a society don't even work without the constant intervention of gods. You still chose to write that entire mess.

Also, I bring the above up as examples as see my prior posting in this thread: For some reason the Thermian Arguments are almost never broken out over basic things like "Prisoners of war deserve basic rights" (Hell, to go back to D&D, for a while the moral dilemma for a lot of D&D players was if Paladins had a moral obligation to violate as much and whether they could get away with going full Goblin Slayer without Falling). Usually the "But does it make sense in the work?" arguments are broken out for things like "Yeah the protagonist / PoV character is an unabashed slaver (Jorah Mormont springs to mind as an immediate example), but does that really make them that bad when you consider the world?"
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
I think, on reflection, one thing that makes me personally uncomfortable is when a feed substantially changes. If I follow an account for comic updates, say, and that’s all it’s posted as far back as it’s reasonable to scroll, it does feel a bit yucky to suddenly see it post/retweet a number of things that get heavily into politics or drama, especially if the content/approach goes against my grain in other ways.

I can recall two such cases in my years on Twitter. In one case the retweets died off after a few weeks, and in the other I ended up unfollowing the artist because I felt their behavior was getting toxic to the point of being triggering.

This applies less to time-sensitive or current-events-topical issues; posting “make sure you’re registered to vote if you’re American” coming up on the US election, especially if the artist themselves is American, is always okay in my book (within reason; if you start tweeting it five times a day I might get fed up, obviously). Posting in support of a minority in response to an attack (whether physical, verbal, or political) on that minority is generally justified, and even more so if the artist or someone close to them belong to that minority. Posting in support of the victims of a disaster (Australian wildfires, the recent Texas freeze, idk), especially with links to resources to directly aid them, is reasonable.

Again, it’s more about changes to the nature of the feed. If it happens once or twice a month it’s not going to even be a blip on my radar unless it’s like... overtly bigoted to the point where I go “how the fuck did this get on my feed?” If it happens multiple times a week for an extended period, and never used to happen at all, I will probably feel more “this is not what I signed up for” about it, particularly if the change is sudden.
 

SolDirix

Pixel fuzz
Seriously, there is nothing wrong with having your own political beliefs, and you have every right to voice them, but if you insist on announcing them to the whole entire world, you must be prepared to suffer the consequences. I think it is a personal choice and I have no problem with people getting up on their soap box. I can separate art from the artist and enjoy it for its own sake. It doesn't mean I have to like the artist though. I can see why artists would want to do this to draw more attention to themselves, but I just think it's a short-sighted gamble.

Just be careful about what you post!
 

MaelstromEyre

Slippery When Wet
As art is considered a "luxury," I don't have an issue with artists discussing their political or religious beliefs.
But, they must also understand that if they are very open about these things, even making art or posting inflammatory comments about controversial issues, they might lose supporters or potential clients who simply liked the art and didn't want to hear about politics.
There have been artists I have even agreed with on the issues, but I unfollowed them because I got sick of all their journals or comments being about political issues or social causes
 

Yakamaru

I put the fun in dysfunctional
As art is considered a "luxury," I don't have an issue with artists discussing their political or religious beliefs.
But, they must also understand that if they are very open about these things, even making art or posting inflammatory comments about controversial issues, they might lose supporters or potential clients who simply liked the art and didn't want to hear about politics.
There have been artists I have even agreed with on the issues, but I unfollowed them because I got sick of all their journals or comments being about political issues or social causes
I follow artists for their art, not their political or other takes. If not politics I unfollow for for instance spamming YCH reminders or other crap like it.

Artists are free to post political content if they so choose, but must be aware that in doing so it can and will drive away commissioners, which will directly affect their income and livelihoods. Question becomes, are your political views more important than being able to feed yourself let alone have a roof over your head?
 
Top