Art, Kickstarter, Fandom and Surrender

Read this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2016/08/15/art-is-about-surrender-stop-asking-for-it-to-be-custom-tailored/?utm_term=.cac16c4ef007

This is EXACTLY the problem not only with "fan" culture, where you have these entitled-ass motherfuckers who have developed this "customer is always right" notion about WORKS OF ART AND CREATIVE EXPRESSION...but also crowdfunding. This whole idea that the consumer can and should influence the creation of a work instead of surrendering to it, trusting the creator, and engaging in that dialogue that should occur between audience and the media. This is also, I think, why Kickstarter games by and large do not have the impact that something like Catan or Magic: The Gathering will ever have. Because of this idea of "democratizing" creation through crowdsourcing...nothing will have the IMPACT that comes from surrendering to a creator's vision, expression or will. What would have happened if Star Wars had been crowdfunded and its backers were invited to provide input and suggestions? Certainly not George Lucas' vision for the story, which is what we surrendered to and accepted...and it IMPACTED us because of that.

Think about Cave Evil...if Nate Hayden had solicited paying customers for advice...what the hell would have turned out? It probably wouldn't have had the black metal art. It probably wouldn't have been as crude and occult. There would be backer portraits on the cards. And you wouldn't have this solitary, singular vision that you either surrender to or move on to something else.

I love that this article draws the connection to patronage, where you had folks like the Rothschilds and Hapsburgs paying artists and dictating content. Now, the patrons are Kickstarter backers and manchild "fans" that threaten creators when they do something they don't approve of.

It also makes me think of that comment I saw about Suicide Squad, how it has no referents outside of other geek media...so when you get these consumer/patrons insisting that art be created to appease them (reversing the surrender), instead of EXPANDING their experience of the world you are simply duplicating their own frame of reference. Which is exactly what most geek culture does- repeat the same tropes ad nauseum, and then mash them up. Same thing with board games and Kickstarter. It's all the same thing.

You think about truly great art- Bowie, Kubrick, Knizia, Dick, Basquiat, Kirby, whatever...at no point did any of these people say to their consumers "how do you think I should do this?" Instead, they gave you THEIR vision, and then you took that vision and made it part of your worldview. Crowdfunding does not allow for this, because it suggests that art is a commodity that can and should be influenced by its consumers. The customer is always right. And there is zero impact because of it.

No disagreement from me, but the opposite can be nearly as bad, when fans blindly and completely adore something without any sense of perspective. For example, the Twilight movies were immune to conventional criticism because the fans were so dedicated. And since you mentioned Suicide Squad, there have been many complaints online by DC fans who accuse movie reviewers of being biased in favor of Marvel.

I think the article lays it on thick on the "art" angle, when what is being discussed mostly is product manufactured for the purpose of consumption, or to sell advertising.

There's more to it, including caretaking of established fictions going back decades but ultimately I don't want to start advocating for over-entitled adult infants by accident.

I don't agree about crowdfunding necessarily leading to over-influence by consumers. It can, and does, because of the very obvious connection to the money a project is trying to raise (asking backers directly what they would like to see, because the creators ultimately want to bring a product that people will want), but not always. CMoN projects seem to run to their set scripts, with very little influence from the backers. Don't Turn Your Back was a kickstarter game. It's not as metal as Cave Evil, no, but it's out there on the spectrum.

And it's not just kickstarter backers. Any time you get some group or committee or patron involved, "art" starts making compromises. Publishers will ask for changes, or for certain things to be included. Compare that to one-man shows like Phil Eklund- whether you like his games or not, they are distinctive and more indicative of a personal vision than many others.

The whole debacle of the High Frontier kickstarter in this case arguably was not the fault of the backers. Everyone just wanted the game to be reprinted, but the publisher started getting ideas about upgrading components and all kinds of unwanted, unneeded stuff, I guess with an eye to making the game more appealing at eventual retail.

I agree a lot on the entitlement of fans and consumers.

Maybe I can reflect on the KS portion of the equation for a bit.

I like to think I've got a level head on my shoulders. I've taken part in exactly 6 KS campaigns, and to be honest, I didn't have much fun in any of them and I think I'm done with that avenue. In fact, I'd cancel my account, but I've got three products outstanding. Why didn't I enjoy them? Maybe I disagreed with the art direction, a rule, or a stretch goal. Maybe I'd rather a pledge level be packaged a different way. Maybe I didn't like all the reading the peanut gallery voicing differing opinions than I in the comments. Maybe I felt I was entitled to more than I was getting. Maybe I didn't really want to spend an amount but feared missing out.

The projects were successful and I'll get product, but being part of the 'to market' process I think it made me feel like I had more influence than probably I should feel I had.

The other parts about art and fandom, someone mentioned here recently about people starting to put more faith in their object of fandom where maybe at another time it was put in something else (higher power, local community, I dunno) and now they've placed all that faith into art, so when a creator goes a direction they don't like...their world is rocked. I thought that was interesting.

I also think some of our interests have gone a bit sideways. I mean, it used to be that comics (as an example) were written by adults for kids. Kids happily consumed them as written with the wonder and excitement of youth. Now, most comics are written by adults for other adults....and we're a curmudgeonly lot with direct, instant access to the creators.

JEM wrote:
The whole debacle of the High Frontier kickstarter in this case arguably was not the fault of the backers. Everyone just wanted the game to be reprinted, but the publisher started getting ideas about upgrading components and all kinds of unwanted, unneeded stuff, I guess with an eye to making the game more appealing at eventual retail.

What kind of retail market will there be for a game with four different manuals with almost 200 pages of documentation ??

I'm clutching at straws as to why they kept insisting on "upgrading" components, then finding they don't work, and resetting the clock on production.