Very Surprised No One Has Mentioned Much About Sapphirefoxx

[Intox]

No, SapphireFoxx, breasts don't work that way.

[vincent_richter]

Originally Posted by Vengeance1701

Wouldn't even have to be anything special textwise. Told him it could just be simple text. Still met with resistance.

Of course you did. Not every artist is going to react positively to the opportunity to alter his works, regardless of their initial quality, when they've already invested significant amounts of time and energy into producing what you see.

Now, were you to approach him with a transcribed copy in-hand, you'd be doing him a favour, which he'd only spurn if he genuinely hates his target audience. Artists that take that stance can all go die in a fire, since they've no will to improve or learn and will only drag others down with them.

It remains to be seen which road the Foxx will take, but he should at least get the chance to prove that there's a reasonable human being somewhere within.

[Vengeance1701]

Couldn't he just use the text from the script? Unless those two were freeforming...something had to be written down.

[darththeo]

Originally Posted by vincent_richter

Well, yes and no. If you're going into the art business, and expect to make friends and/or cash, you learn to cater to actual majorities. However, animation is a lot of work, and it's certainly not unreasonable to expect others to pick up some of the slack when you take it on alone. What I mean to say, is that if someone else puts the time into transcribing and timing Sapphire's work, it'd be much more difficult to write off the five minutes' work to include it in the finished product - as opposed to the several hours it'd take to alter the initial effort.

If you start pissing off enough minorities than you are going to eventually piss off the majority.

[vincent_richter]

Okay, cards up.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I despise unreasonably belligerent artists.
Hate 'em with every fibre of my being.

However, I'm also willing to admit that - when I give nothing to better their lives other than occasional commentary - said artists are within rights to tell me to piss up a rope. That doesn't mean I have to appreciate the attitude, but the ultimate point is that the non-paying public has very little impact on an artist's personal life. Van Gogh - bad metaphor aside - wasn't really appreciated until after he died.

Originally Posted by Vengeance1701

Couldn't he just use the text from the script? Unless those two were freeforming...something had to be written down.

Artist's prerogative. What if you made a pizza for your friends, and one of them asked why there wasn't more Parmesan? You busted your balls for something you're not getting paid to do - and even when you do, it's not by the people you serve. Sure, the cheese is right there - but where do you draw the line between what the consumer perceives as constructive criticism, and the producer may perceive as ingratitude? Now, same scenario - if your "buddies" passed the Parmesan around, and maybe handed you back a slice to compare, would it be as insulting as never getting to experience the difference due to any number of factors? This is all hypothetical, of course, but the fact remains that some people are more sensitive than others. Differences make us unique, and I applaud SapphireFoxx for sticking to his guns - even when they're empty and the Horde is moving in.

Originally Posted by darththeo

If you start pissing off enough minorities than you are going to eventually piss off the majority.

That's the rub though, isn't it? We're not talking about grave social injustices or deadly-faulty consumer products, are we? We're talking about the sense of entitlement that dictates that one party must acknowledge every comment another party makes because, dammit, it's my First Amendment right to be heard! It's absolutely devastating to the morale of anyone with an ounce of artistic integrity, and it needs to stop. Once one says "no, this will never happen," it is considerably less wise to "rally the troops" around an entrenched position than it is to just move on to another artist who's more willing to compromise. There is no shame in denying an artist an opportunity he will not accept, as there will always be new artists.

[Katt]

Originally Posted by Intox

No, SapphireFoxx, breasts don't work that way.

Hehe, I know what you mean :P

EDIT: Back on topic, whose to say that the people wanting text aren't the same people that are donating (paying) for these? Sounds like a case of "I don't care, I got your money already."

[vincent_richter]

Originally Posted by Katt

Back on topic, whose to say that the people wanting text aren't the same people that are donating (paying) for these? Sounds like a case of "I don't care, I got your money already."

That's all fair, though I'd say "the Kickstarter" for one. If you consider that 10% of the viewers donated, and of those maybe 10% made that exact comment - and that's being generous - that equates to less than 1% of his paying viewers noticing this deficiency.

Further, it's possible that some people use multiple identities for different purposes, but odds tend to be against that.

My point is this: if he doesn't produce what you want now, and you're not going to help him do it, why the hell would you pay him money???

[darththeo]

Originally Posted by vincent_richter

That's the rub though, isn't it? We're not talking about grave social injustices or deadly-faulty consumer products, are we? We're talking about the sense of entitlement that dictates that one party must acknowledge every comment another party makes because, dammit, it's my First Amendment right to be heard! It's absolutely devastating to the morale of anyone with an ounce of artistic integrity, and it needs to stop. Once one says "no, this will never happen," it is considerably less wise to "rally the troops" around an entrenched position than it is to just move on to another artist who's more willing to compromise. There is no shame in denying an artist an opportunity he will not accept, as there will always be new artists.

Here is the thing, if he starts pushing away fans that are interested and would pay him ... how long until he pushes away those that are paying him a little, etc ... He is forcing anyone who isn't already in love with his work away and this will push people away.

So soon he is just appealing to a minority. Artist integrity is just another term for stubborn. An artist that doesn't take realistic feedback from his audience isn't an artist ... he is an asshole.

[Quarma]

Originally Posted by vincent_richter

We're talking about the sense of entitlement that dictates that one party must acknowledge every comment another party makes because, dammit, it's my First Amendment right to be heard! It's absolutely devastating to the morale of anyone with an ounce of artistic integrity, and it needs to stop.

There's a huge difference between "THIS ARTIST SUCKS, I'M GOING TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY'RE DOING WRONG BECAUSE FUCK THEM!!!" and "Oh man, I really want to like this, but there's just this one personal dealbreaker...maybe the artist could fix that?". The key difference is that if the artist plays their cards right, they could easily turn the latter commenter into a consumer.

I agree with you that an artist shouldn't be forced to accept all criticism. Caring too much about destructive criticism is abysmal to an artist's morale. However, I feel as though an artist should acknowledge all CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Because most of the time, constructive criticism is about making things better for greater enjoyment. However, artists that follow your mindset like to use the block functions of the internet to create a magic criticism-free bubble, entirely void of progress or self-improvement because they think that anyone who tells them there's something wrong with their work is just a stupid hater who wants them to die.

Now, I'm not saying an artist has to USE all constructive criticism. Someone writing a gritty detective story shouldn't listen to critics who want it to be a lighthearted romantic comedy starring a pansexual overweight black woman. But an artist should still acknowledge all criticism and think about if it would improve their work. The same way viewers should be critical of the media they enjoy, artists should be critical of the media they create. However, sometimes it's really hard to notice a flaw with something until someone else points it out to you. Hence, critics.

TL;DR: Not all criticism is valid but that doesn't mean all criticism is invalid.

[vincent_richter]

Originally Posted by Quarma

However, I feel as though an artist should acknowledge all CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Because most of the time, constructive criticism is about making things better for greater enjoyment.

I don't disagree, but if SapphireFoxx has made his decision about censoring content, why even bother with him anymore? The position is unlikely to change, and the horse... with the bat... after it's died... WHHHHHHYYYYY???

Originally Posted by Quarma

However, artists that follow your mindset like to use the block functions of the internet to create a magic criticism-free bubble, entirely void of progress or self-improvement because they think that anyone who tells them there's something wrong with their work is just a stupid hater who wants them to die.

Being as you only presume to know anything about me, I'll assume you mean that mindset and aren't attempting to dismiss my stance with pseudo-psychoanalytical bullshit.

When an artist has made it clear that they do not value criticism that doesn't mollycoddle them, why waste your time? There are other people far more deserving of your attention, than a lone artist who's only going to write off everything you have to say as petty vindictiveness that seeks to crush his vision.

TL;DR: This kind of artist isn't worth the time.

[Quarma]

I think that mentality is even worse. "Don't like something about this artist? FUCK EM!! Just ditch them forever. Don't ever talk about them again or talk about why you don't like them!" Like, yes, if I spent a metric fuckton of my time rallying against someone over subtitles for internet videos, then you'd have a point. But this isn't something I'm passionate about, it's just something I felt like talking about because someone else brought it up. I made that poll checking to see what other people thought just for my own curiosity, I wasn't going to turn it into some sort of movement.

[vincent_richter]

Re-read what I said and take a step back.

It's not something I dislike about his particular attitude, it is - in point-of-fact - everything.
When an artist decides to be passively-aggressive towards every critical post, it's time to find a new artist.

Don't think I ever said you shouldn't decry such idiotic behaviour, simply that I don't understand why you'd waste your breath.