/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

She's just being dramatic.

>>2219442
what in the fucking hell does fanart has to do with sexism. fanart is cool and /ic/ like other hipsters have a hateboner against it because it gets you more popular than you would from drawing something neutral

>>2219448
having a victim complex is now encouraged in modern society anon. I don't understand why people get surprised anymore when someone has it.

little of column a, little of column b.

the majority of fanart is from girls gushing inexpertly. at the same time, artists and writers taking existing stories and re-inventing and interpreting them has been a staple of the art world since forever, which includes the majority of recorded art history where women were systematically discouraged, shut out, and in some cases outright forbidden to pursue art on a professional level.

honestly, i'd say the scorn directed towards fanart vs ~re-imagining~ has less to do with gender and more to do with tone and whether the piece they've picked is out of copyright or not. fanart of myths has been considered a noble subject to draw since painting became a thing, and people are going to find your fully-rendered fanart of conan doyle's original sherlock holmes in his office more legit and respectable than your cel-shaded fanart bust of the new sherlock series guy wearing a flower crown or whatever.

that said, it's weird how the fandom sphere has become such a gender-segregated thing. i remember in the early 2000's, it seemed like both men and women were writing fanfiction, whereas now it seems to be almost exclusively the domain of women.

People refer to it as fanart regardless of gender. She's throwing sexism bullshit into it when it's completely unnecessary.

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with doing fanart anyway, some people get up their own ass about it or are butthurt because people get bigger audiences from fanart than their deep, introspective drawing of a man on a toilet or whatever.

>>2219442
She actually is right tho. If you actually take a moment and think about how women are shunned from excelling in modern society it's quite sickening. An example of this is J.K. Rowling going by J.K. Rowling so publishers would not know if she were a woman or not.

>>2219494
>this is what girls actually think
turns out you actually have to produce something excellent to excel. I know you women aren't used to having to earn things in life.

>>2219442

Oh yeah when grown up men make doodles of Wolverine and Naruto, they are totally taken as serious artists.

>because in my expirience
>a fountain of bullshit

Please, fanart was never and will never be highly regarded.

I don't exactly know who this person is but if she sticks to fanart while being a capable artist then I'd assume she's either lazy or empty. At some point you should feel confident enough to do something that's your's. To pursue your own vision if you have any. It's extremely niggardly to try and hide behind some hurr durr rhethoric instead of admitting you're unimaginative or not driven by anything but praise+money.

>>2219475

>bringing a book or a myth onto canvas is the same as "reimagining" an already visualised mass entertainment piece

It's not even "reimagining", most of the time everything stays exactly the same, unless they make it a point to make it different for ideological reasons (gender, race etc. almost never things that affect the atmosphere).

Only thing that changes is the style (and quality, of course) and the propensity of the characters to suck each other off and be le twinky twinky boiz for all the crusty, heaving whale wymyn, who'll bother to seek out these materials.

>>2219494

yeah, there's some messed up shit out there if you start poking around the sociology studies. i remember there was a minor flurry around how young boy readers were being shut out by YA fiction because it has all these female protagonists, and wasn't that so alienating and discouraging to expect them be able to emphasize with a female, tsk tsk, and then this huge pushback of people pointing out how the ratio of male to female protagonists in movies is like 9~10:1 and yet girls seem to manage on the emphasizing front just fine.

and another one about how young boys think katniss is hot shit until adults point out that katniss is a ~girl~ and didn't they know liking ~girly things~ was bad.

i think women have always been inclined to be more aware of their relationship to media, what with the whole 'half the world population; treated like a minority audience' thing.

>>2219511
But when they doodle chicks they want to bang it's ok

>>2219502

Tbh fam I'm not a woman. I just do this thing called thinking and have this emotion called empathy which allows me to see things for what they are. Smh fam, smh.

>>2219531

1. Porn ain't respected.
2. People have inborn drive for sex that is nearly universal, hence they can sort of relate. Not so much a drive for corniness and other things fanfiction/art oozes.

>>2219502
Graph is the reponse to identical resumes; literally the only difference is one had the name John on the top and the other had Jennifer.

If you get hired to a position over a similarly qualified woman, chances are it ain't cause ya better, dude.

>>2219561

I bet you have no problem boys getting shafted grade-wise, where teachers will grade them 10% worse when the tests aren't anonymous and they know the names.

>>2219561
There is a risk of being legally obligated to accomadate a woman's pregnancy, which is a drain on company resources, thus it is more logical to hire an otherwise identical man.

And its perfectly reasonable to have certain preconceived notions about someone based on their gender.

>>2219561
maybe thats because with equal resumes the men will outperform and have that sweet sweet mental stability.

>>2219528
>Please, fanart was never and will never be highly regarded.
All religious art is essentially fanart. Some of that comes highly regarded.

>>2219442
>check her work
>it's just copying screencaps from tv shows

>>2219442
No because no matter who makes it it's called fanart. And a lot of women do have a reason to feel upset about feeling excluded from things they like, but when you start taking legitimate questions like that as an attack on your gender then you have a problem

>>2219573
Oh fucking please

>>2219573
Only under the most broad definition.

When people say fan art they mean art of a contemporary, typically already visual, price of fiction.

>>2219581
So? Still counts.

>>2219574
Oh wow you weren't kidding. Not sure how doing photostudies from screencaps counts as fanart in the first place, or why it gets attention, or why she is so butthurt about things and bringing in gender when it wasn't even a part of the question.

>>2219586
No it doesn't.

Language is based off accepted meaning not literal meaning you autist

Also considering most relgious art is done by people who think it's truth, its not fan art.

>>2219586
autist supreme

>>2219592
>Language is based off accepted meaning n
And I don't accept that definition of fanart. So suck it.

>>2219573
>mental gymnastics: the post

>>2219621
At least I'm good at something, unlike you.

>>2219627
Being autistic?
Drawing fan art?

autism the thread

>>2219567

Sure. Understanding the atavistic biases you have in an attempt to overcome them is important no matter the gender. Anonymous grading is great - look at how blind orchestra auditions overhauled the amount of female participation in the music world.

Yet I'd bet my bottom dollar that you have no problem with the fact that boys and girls contributing an equal amount in the classroom, as processed impartially by recording and measuring the instances and length of contribution after the fact, is perceived in real time as girls dominating the classroom conversation by as much as 90%, and it was only when boys had 70~%80% of the talking time that they felt the contribution amount was equal. Because your immediate response of 'IT HAPPENS TO MEN TOO SO SHUT UP' showed you see this as a give-and-take gender war rather than processing and accepting that how you're treated and the things you have are intrinsically influenced by the biases of others and trying to separate what you've earned versus what was given. You don't care about the issues. You're just uncomfortable with the reality that a chunk of what you think is your own merit was actually you getting unjustly favored over other people for no other reason than that you have a dick.

>>2219580
>>2219592
>>2219621
>>2219625
>>2219631
All that butthurt.

>>2219645
holy fuck tumblr pls go

>>2219475
>fanart of myths has been considered a noble subject to draw since painting became a thing
They weren't fan art. They can only be called fan art in the most shallow sense. Fan art is a pop culture thing, not an intellectual culture thing. In classical mythology are concepts of justice, virtue, wisdom, truth, goodness, civilization in the highest and most noble forms. Using newly coined words for older, completely unrelated subjects can rarely be done correctly.

>>2219442
People like her use tumblr as a soapbox for their unwarrented self-importance.

What reason does she have to respond to this anon publicly in the manner she did? Her response does nothing to answer their question and probably has nothing to do with what the anon was thinking. It's not to respond to them, it's to show off to her viewers how superior she is.

She's also wrong.

>>2219655
>they weren't fan art because they were valued

Keep on proving the Tumblr girls right, guy.

>>2219645
im not the guy youre talking to but...

Wow so many complex words making such a huge mess. You showed us! I read it twice and i can still barely decipher what you mean.

What the fuck does contributing have to do with anything? girls talk a lot? so what?Something about not deserving your achievements because i have a dick?

Legit confused as to what you were trying to say.

My analysis reveals: Bait? Maybe?

>>2219661
its not cartoons and kid oriented stories is the point.

>>2219567
Grades mean absolutely nothing in the real world. Employers don't give a shit about your grades. Looking at the other boys from my old ninth grade class, it's clearly the socially competent Chads who have a better life, while the spergs with good grades are mostly living with their parents and either have a shit job or no job, with only one exception (but he was super smart and probably gifted). Boys supposedly getting lower grades does not harm them at all.

>people still think women and men are equal

Remember one chromosome difference is enough to have downs

>>2219442
Lel this post has like 30,000 reblogs. Makes me laugh overtime I see it.

Fanart is art, Tracing screen caps and strapping traced heads on terribly created bodies is not though. Sure you can take a cap of $RANDOMGARBAGESHOW and rework it into a whole different piece but most fan art isn't like that.

The topic of the art doesn't matter, it's the execution.

>>2219696
>Sure you can take a cap of $RANDOMGARBAGESHOW and rework it into a whole different piece

Call it 'screencapbashing', call it a new art form

>>2219448
>fanart is cool
fanart is gay, grow out of such childish things.

>inb4 you mention religious art
right, the last supper and your shitty homosuck drawing are totally on the same level.

>>2219685

Personally I don't think men and women are equal, any retard can see we're physically and mentally different. What matters is equal opportunity. And I don't mean "kneecap men so women can succeed" or "set the bar lower for women" I just mean flat meritocracy. If that means, as some anons have posited, complete anonymity before a selection is made, that's fine by me.

>>2219703
We have equal opportunity under the law, the only thing standing in the way of women is the personal opinions of specific people running their own companies where they have the right to hire who they wilt

>>2219661
I don't care about tumblr. My post has nothing to do with that or gender. If a woman painted mythological scenes in the Renaissance or Baroque, it still wouldn't be fan art.

>I have a vagina, so they must be insulting me because of it

Fucking genius this gril right here

>>2219442
Professional artist here:
Grown man or young girl... fanart is fanart and it is looked down upon even when crafted with exceptional skill it seems a waste of talent... here's why: an artist's job is not to be inspired... it is to be the one inspiring.

>>2219726
Post your work

>>2219701
>right, the last supper and your shitty homosuck drawing are totally on the same level
you've been browsing /ic/ far too much. I draw fanart of stuff I enjoy, and to my parents' dismay I might never grow out of it.

>>2219731
Shut up. I'm right and you're wrong.

GROW UP

>>2219726
All good artists were inspired by something whether they are paying tribute to someone in particular with their pieces or not.

>>2219728
Recent finished acrylic painting.

>>2219741
That's pretty sick.

Got a site?

>>2219741
if that's really your work than good shit man

>>2219745
Yeah but i have personal comtact info and i dont ever associate that with 4chan. Sorry homie

>>2219741
That's collage. The only things that look painted are the skull and the lion head, and they look like acrylic copies of photos.

>>2219750
Yeah, I found it, you hipster looking fuck
http://instidy.com/ianmillerart

>>2219749
Thanks dude. I didnt come here to show off though i just made an obersvation on this thread's topic and my legitimacy was immediately called into question.

>>2219753
Lol busted

>>2219750
>>2219753
>>2219756
It's not like /ic/ ever does raids or anything anyway

>>2219751
Found this on his site

Looks like the entire thing is painted

>>2219753
Good shit.
Also, wife is hot.

>>2219761
Lol thanks dude

>>2219760
Okay well what a waste of time. He's copying a collage he made then. Every part is lit differently and doesn't interact with each other and the exposure and colours make it painfully obvious that they're photos.

>>2219753
Was that just a reverse image search

>>2219763
i would fuck your daughter

>>2219764
Come on, man. You can't deny that it's very well painted

>>2219731
enjoy being a hack, doing nothing original.

>>2219764
no he's a professional and ORIGINAL artist who doesn't get inspired HE DOES THE INSPIRING because good artists exist in a vaccum

>>2219766
Yes

>>2219764
yeah dude your anime videogame fan art speedpaints are totally cooler

Fan art is the quickest and easiest way to get popular.

Anyone who disagrees can go on and continue living their lives wondering why no one is noticing them, then commit suicide.

I didnt come here to be crucified... i just figured i present a useful insight coming from someone who makes art for a living. But i can see my efforts are mostly lost on this board lol

>>2219783
I'd rather be a musician than a clown

>>2219785
oooOO o so poetic

such philosophy

gurd one

>>2219784
I like your stuff, your tattoo work is solid

>>2219773
why are you assuming he does fan art.

even though i hate fan art i'd rather look at that than something that looks like a photo collage.

>>2219573
>All religious art is essentially fanart.

When I'm copying wolverine and wonders how to draw his feet, it's because I'm a fan of Liefield: this is fanart.
The original author was doing comics, it's clearly a tribute. That's the very idea behind the word "fanart", and why she thinks it's not considered real art is entirely her problem, not mine. There are plenty of tribute in the music world, and not a fuck is given about it being "immature" or whatever.

When I'm drawing Jesus instead of Wolverine, this cannot be regarded as fanart, because the subject itself is originally not a piece of art by another artist.

The only grey area I can see is that people call "fanarts" the illustrations done for characters from books. The artist is giving his personnal interpretation of another medium, it has been done since forever. Not that etiquettes matter much anyway, but still. Damn.

> Voltaire's stories were sword&sorcery because they contained phoenix and unicorns.

>>2219701
>fanart is gay, grow out of such childish things.

No. You stop being such a boring fucking person that has zero interests.

>>2219807
>When I'm drawing Jesus instead of Wolverine, this cannot be regarded as fanart, because the subject itself is originally not a piece of art by another artist.
This is correct.

>>2219814
But it's COOL not to publicly express interest in anything!!!!

hmph... *unzips katana* fan art is for gay immature fags

>>2219814
My interests are REALITY and NATURE I draw REAL things like Abraham Lincoln and Frogs.

I'm imaginative and original unlike all you pleb fanartists

>>2219701

>this little fucking baby still drawing

Adults grow out of this artsy fartsy shit you little faggot. Get a real job.

>>2219807
>>2219818
wrong

Jesus almost always looks the same in those illustrations. He has been an established character for at least 1500 years and unless you were like one of the first artists who painted him, all the thousands who came afterwards drew him inspired by those first few artists who first established his "design".

Some fanart by Kim Jung Gi, that uninspiring hack.

>>2219831
woops.

>>2219807
>When I'm drawing Jesus instead of Wolverine, this cannot be regarded as fanart, because the subject itself is originally not a piece of art by another artist.

So you're telling me you got Jesus to sit there and pose for you so you could draw him like one of your French girls, anon?
Because every depiction of Jesus comes from fucking art.

>>2219824

kek'd

>>2219834
>>2219831
If I draw you am I doing fanart dedicated to your mom?

>>2219841
No, but if I was an established character who had been depicted for over a thousand years in the same way, you'd be doing pretty much the same as any fanart artist does.

>>2219845
Are you stating this under the assumption that Jesus was or was not a real person?

Who cares? Just draw. There will always be people who don't take you seriously, regardless of what you draw or what gender you are.
If you've been lucky enough to find something that makes you happy, who the hell are you trying to please? Don't take that happiness for granted. Fuck everyone else. They'll glare at your art for a moment and move on anyways.

Her work.

>>2219855
Pretty nice, it's a shame the background is kind of bland. Not too detracting though.

i hate women

>>2219848
Why does that matter?

>>2219857
It's a screencap redraw of a character from the new mad max movie.

>>2219848

Irrelevant.
If you're drawing standard bearded Jesus that's familiar to everyone, you're copying another artist's work.

>>2219859
I'm asking to know if it matters to you whether or not the person existed for art of them to be considered fanart.

>>2219866
what if you draw black jesus

>>2219870
I think heard somewhere that Jesus is viewed differently in other countries. Like in some places in Africa he's portrayed as black, and in Korea he's portrayed as asian.

>>2219872

Oldest paintings we have from Jesus are a young badass shepherd (without beard) and a man with the head of an ass (go figure).

It doesn't matter if Jesus is drawn the same or differently: Egyptians also had a tendancy to draw the exact same figures, that didn't make it Osiris fanarts.

There's a fundamental difference between an artist drawing Jesus and someone tracing a character from Mad Max (except the obvious joke that the Bible is science fiction).

When someone makes an official wallpaper for the next Mad Max movie, you don't call it a fanart. It's official. Someone makes an unofficial wallpaper, it's fanart.

Same for a painting of Jesus, it isn't derivative, every depiction of Jesus is inserted in the old tradition of painting Jesus doing various stuff. Calling it fanart would mean that it's unofficial. Obviously it's not when you find it in a church.

>>2219870

Then /pol/ would be sad. It already took them a long time to accept that Jesus was a Jew.

I draw fanart whenever a story or a character inspires me to do so, not to gain popularity and dank tumblr follows.

>>2219807
Fanart is not limited to 'art of stuff created by artists'. You pointed out books as an example (tho writers are technically artists, so I think it'd still count by your definition). You can be a fan of a person, and draw/write stuff with them. That definitely counts as 'fan creation'. But there's no IP involved there. Fanart is art made by a fan for the thing they are a fan of. Limiting the definition more then that ends up ignoring SOMETHING that is 100% fanart by most peoples' counts. There's fanart of Buddha and Jesus fucking out there that most people would call it fanart (mostly because of the content or way it looks, granted). Just because they're religious figures doesn't change that it's fanart. There are god-tier paintings of Shakespeare's work out there. The masters did fanart, even by your definition.

I think the reason it feels wrong to call paintings of religions/myths/etc 'fanart' is because we're still not sure how to understand what we see now thanks to the internet. Before, the only people we saw doing anything remotely 'fanarty' had their shit hanging up in museums, published, or working in big productions making movies/etc. We saw it as 'influence', back then. Now with the internets, we can see artists in ALL stages. Sharing shit that the greats might have done when they sucked. The same goofy, weird passion that pushes people to draw sonic OCs is the very same passion that pushed the old masters to paint myths. We just have a hard time seeing that connection, since most fanart is shit.

A huge portion of the best artists out there are/were big time fangirls/fanboys. You will not find a great artist who hasn't drawn a single piece of fanart throughout their lives. A huge part of the learning process is consumption, it's bound to happen.

If you think about it, you can be a fan of anything. So if you're a fan of animals, drawing animals could be considered fanart. lol

>>2219827
so you're saying you're a....FAN of nature?

:^)

>>2219841
That depends, are you a fan of anon?

>>2219741
Nice fanart of a skull wearing samurai armor, real original.

>>2219827
No one ever said you are supposed to just draw fanart and nothing else. Plenty of artists do a lot of original work, draw from life and nature etc and still do fanart.

>Fan art or fanart are artworks created by fans of a work of fiction (generally visual media such as comics, movies, television shows or video games) and derived from a character or other aspect of that work.

Kill yourselves, our fan art isn't okay because "uhall urt ih fah ar"

>>2219908
I kek'd at that too.
>an artist's job is not to be inspired... it is to be the one inspiring.

Then goes off to draw the most generic shit possible AND drawing fan art on his page.

the reason fanart is looked down upon is because it is generally viewed as an outlet for low-quality tumblrshit and autistic fetish porn; and most of it is.

i've never heard anyone say that guan yu or jana's is lesser by virtue of being part of that category.


the more i hear women explain sexism on the internet, the more certain i become that they've never actually experienced it.

>>2219886
The Nativity scene is not in the Bible. That'd make the Nativity scene derivative, or in fancircles, an AU of the birth of Jesus.

Is widely-accepted-as-canon fanart still fanart?

>>2219920
Fanart is only looked down upon if you only exclusively draw fanart and nothing else.

She's absolutely retarded.

If you feel art was designed to be done a specific way, please just off yourself right now.

>>2219442
>is she right?

No, she isn't. Fanart is not bad per se, regardless of whether it's made by a woman or a man. Nonetheless she's blowing it out of proportion and personally I think that someone who does only fanart (or mainly fanart) can't be a great artist.

They might be technically good, but being an artist also means being able to use your technical skills to create something of your own. Doing fanart is nothing but regurgitating the work of other artists, even if you re-imagine it with your own style. People who do fanart are second-hand artist. Only Original Content is real art.

>>2219920
>i've never heard anyone say that guan yu or jana's is lesser by virtue of being part of that category.

You haven't been on /ic/ for long then. I remember another "hurr durr fanart sucks" thread a while ago where people were unironically calling pic related shit because it's fanart.

>>2219926

Well what the fuck is "original" anon? All art has its inspirations, even abstract shit often follows a school that was inspired by some other creator of abstract shit. There are countless timeless pieces of art that weren't "original" at all. Consider, for example, the religious themes prominent in such a vast number of pieces for much of history. Many of these are not original. They depict characters and events of significance to the creator.

The need for art to be something deeply personal and original is a modern creation.

>>2219442
Typical artist can't see the forest through the trees . No she is not right op, she doesn't even understand what's being asked of her.

>>2219937
She's overreacting but the person she replied to is a passive aggressive dipshit who was clearly trying to provoke.

>>2219921

The Star Wars books are not even considered canon anymore, yet they are not fanarts, by opposition to what you or myself could write about the resurrection of Chewbacca.

I don't even understand how religious paintings can be see as fanart. They're the real thing. You wouldn't call the cover of a comic book a fanart?

>>2219928
>because it's fanart.

Isn't it simply /ic/ hating on Janaschi for no good reason?

>>2219950
/ic/ gets so flustered and insecure whenever they see something that way beyond their skill limit. It's hilarious.

>>2219928
i was here for a long time, but this is the first time i've come back in a year. i take it the board hasn't improved since jace and tehmeh left?

>>2219950
>tfw she burnt out and doesn't wanna do art anymore

>>2219954
>>tfw she burnt out and doesn't wanna do art anymore
Source?

>>2219935
>tfw the internet has given artists the opportunity to create art without the restrictions that come with having to make a commercial product
>tfw finally artists can create original artwork that doesn't have to fit a mold that panders to a pre-existing fanbase
>tfw all that artists end up drawing is fanart because it gets them so many views XD

>>2219935
>The need for art to be something deeply personal and original is a modern creation.

And so what? The need for geometry to be deductive and consistent is a modern creation as well. Does this mean we should go back to a time when mathematics was less rigorous and more heuristic?

The main subjects of art in the past were religious and historical themes. We currently live in a post-modern world that has long since abandoned most of its traditional spiritual values and has forsaken patriotic roots, making the celebration of historical events something that is frowned upon as ultra-nationalism.

Regardless, most people simply are no longer interested in those themes. There is no longer enough unity, cohesion and uniformity in our societies to allow for such themes to be meaningful. They're empty to us.

As far as I'm concerned originality comes in the form of creating something that is meaningful for the artist himself. And not in the form of drawing a character that he likes. Rather in the form of him creating a character that he likes. Or drawing any scene that is aesthetically pleasing to him. And this should be accomplished without any (explicit) reference to the work of someone else.

It's ok to be inspired by other people, but it's just childish to simply rip-off other people's characters and use them in your drawings. Create your own works, create your own characters.

>>2219926
what if I told you nothing is original
Whatever issue you have with fanart is more of a reflection of yourself then it is any actual fault in fanart itself. You will be a better artist and person if you really think about that, my friend. Whether you change your opinion or not.

>>2219935
this fucker gets it.

>>2219904
same anon here, just realized my own definition actually ignores fanart that's made by people who don't give a shit about the source and are just doing it for views.

My points still stand, but I think all the exceptions just hammers home the fact that fanart is just art and the distinction between the two has more to do with cultural perceptions then anything else. So tumblrina in OP's pic is right, just being stupid, dramatic, and flouncing the ol' victim complex.

It's almost as if art is as arbitrary as human perception

>>2219966
her facebook

>>2219970
>what if I told you nothing is original.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Humans are unable to create from nothing, as far as I know. Therefore everything they create is either a revision of something found in nature or of the work of some other person.

Yet this does not mean humans are photocopiers. It is fully possible to create something "new" and "original" by combining existing elements in new forms that nobody ever tried. Think about chemistry. The number of pure substances in this universe is very limited. Yet chemists are creating new compounds all the time.

>>2219967
>tfw anon generalizes to make a shitty point
>tfw anon ignores artists not doing fanart
>tfw anon does the same thing that encourages artists to do fanart to get views

What is all this bullshit about fanart being for little girls and immature people?

I have literally never heard anyone besides 14 year olds on DA and morons here on /ic/ who can't draw complain about this shit. And honestly, no one with any level of skill gives a flying fuck about what plebs dont like. Everyone else is out there happily making art and kicking your asses, getting paid to make art for a living.

What the hell do you all think freelance work is? You're making art often of established characters and IP's. So it's not fanart because it's a paid job and because you say so? lol it's all the same shit.

I doubt anyone other than basement dwelling tublr retards are going to look at some sick fanart and go "oh, that artist is so immature because that's fanart and not some totally original stuff."

Get over yourselves, welcome to the real world where no one gives a shit.

>>2219988
>Everyone else is out there happily making art and kicking your asses, getting paid to make art for a living.
>getting paid to make art for a living.

Those aren't artists. They're visual prostitutes.

>welcome to the real world where no one gives a shit.

You're right. No one gives a shit about sellouts getting a few bucks to draw what other people tell them to draw.

>>2219984

Well yes, but then that doesn't fall under the concept of "originality" as seen by the rabid anons in this thread that for some obscure reason have a gripe with fanart on a fundamental level.

I do agree with what you said though.

>>2219968

>It's ok to be inspired by other people, but it's just childish to simply rip-off other people's characters and use them in your drawings. Create your own works, create your own characters.

Why? What makes this inherently "adult" whereas drawing a subject of someone else's creation, or even nature's creation, is "childish"? How many immature people obsessively draw their "OC"s? Where do you draw the line between something being original and not original? If you draw an elf that is Tolkienesque, but not explicitly a character created by Tolkien, is that okay? Because it's part of a commonly accepted "fantasy"? Even if much of that fantasy is derived from Tolkien's works?
If you draw a historical event that has been drawn by others, is that derivative? If your art follows a theme that is depicted in many other pieces of art?
Where is this line drawn where your art suddenly transcends being childish to become mature, anon? When does something become original? Is it really mature to aspire to originality and uniqueness to the point of obsession?