I don't know why people can't stand this line of thinking. You cannot please everyone. You cannot accurately guess what other people want. The only thing you can do is write about what you know and value and hope that enough people will connect with that.
He just puts it in a douchey way.
>He just puts it in a douchey way.
Because some people don't understand things if you don't belittle them.
Then don't act shocked people call you a douche for it. That's like kicking a dog and getting angry at it for running away.
Why would you post this? Now I'm busy furiously fapping to it.
I don't understand why people start giving a frick about alan moore again.
He was always based.
>You cannot please everyone. You cannot accurately guess what other people want. The only thing you can do is write about what you know and value and hope that enough people will connect with that.
That's not what he said.
It's one thing when talking artists who produce free work based on their own IPs, but otherwise, the audience spends their money, time and attention on products. Why shouldn't they be entitled to what they want?
>It is not the job of me, Alan Moore, to give the audience what the audience wants. If the peasan- I mean audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn't be the audience. They would be me, the patrician Alan Moore. It is the job of me, Alan Moore, to give the audience what they need, because I cannot simply admit that I am providing entertainment and must delude myself into believing I am the intellectual superior of everyone who consumes my work.
He just can't admit that artists need an audience, rather than the other way around. His psychosis requires that never admits his work is servile in nature.
You only need an audience to be rich as an artist, not to be an artist, And Moore has never had problems attracting an audience, without pandering to their wants in the slightest.
Your jelly practically oozes from your post.
>call out pretentious behavior
>lol ur just jelly
everytiem
>He just can't admit that artists need an audience, rather than the other way around
That's only the case of commercial art, nothing about art requires an audience unless you're in it purely for the revenue stream.
I think it's because people try and apply this to corporate artistry, which is all about giving the audience what they want because they pay for it and it's not a single individual vison but the collective vision of hundreds of grunt workers
>corporate artistry
A nonsense term. You can produce art with corporate funding, but corporations cannot produce art through corporate techniques.
Movies and media are typically funded by corporate entities, the many artist working on it have barely any say in it overall but minor portions like
>this character has this texture
>this character has this rigging method
>the movement in this scene is this subtle
because the writer, the director, the animation supervisor, etc are all different people and have to make this "Art" for an audience profit
Mario movie is not art, it's highly profitable by-the-numbers animation using the same techniques that have been used for quite a while now.
Casting, writing, art style, all of it is corporately designed to create profit from familiarity and comfy nostalgia. And it's very successful at that.
The new Spider-Man animation takes even more artistic risks than the first one, doesn't do anything traditionally and is actual Art. There were any number of less risky Spider-Man projects that money could have went towards.
Mario = corporate funded corporate movie making.
Spiderverse = corporate funded art.
But even in the corporate world you don't find the most success purely chasing what others consider popular. Innovation requires you to take risks and try new things, you can't become the next big thing by only doing what everyone else is doing.
Not a lot of writers are good at giving readers what they need so it’s easier to give people what they want. And people aren’t always good enough to give themselves what they want. They’d rather find someone that can do it for them. It’s harder to sell something people need than what they want and actively search for.
Three reasons.
1. Moore said it.
2. Most popular artists and writers are too shit to pull this off effectively especially when working for corporate owned nostalgia properties which is basically all of mainstream media at this point.
3. Most people here have no actual interest or respect for art or artists and don't want to see it and just want to keep watching the cartoons and comics and shows they saw as a kid. Which in cases where pretentious hacks are trying to do their own Alan Moore reinvention on an old zombie property I can understand and agree with.
This is basically it.
When Moore said it (in the 80s), he expected people that would be working on their own thing like he and some others at the time did, not working on the same old thing, but making it worse
>Most people here have no actual interest or respect for art or artists and don't want to see it and just want to keep watching the cartoons and comics and shows they saw as a kid
Guilty as charged. Many artists produce works that (often clumsily) champion their politics and worldview, and it's increasingly tiresome