Staredit Network

So, this can go in either: Creative Works, Garbage, or Serious Discussion but I think this topic will appeal to more people who visit here. If you think its in the wrong spot then report it and it'll get moved

This idea has started a long time ago, when I was watching Spirited Away , an anime by Miyazaki (one of the bigger names). It got me thinking, his art work is amazing, but that's not what makes it so great; its the story and music that goes with it. I wonder that if I were to put up a picture of something he drew, would it be praised? Would it be praised because its his?
I just bought an expieremental anime called Blame! which had character designs by Watanabe, and also involvement by other names, none of which I can remember (but I know they're important.) Watanabe worked on the Animatrix, Wolf's Rain, and Cowboy Bebop. Of course, different rules apply to this one, since it is expierimental, making it intentionally hard to follow and abstract. The first part (known as Log 1) is simply a slideshow; the only movement is sliding over a frame. Log 2 has a bit more movement, but it is clipped and quick.
Slideshows in flash, may I remind you, often does not have the higher approval ratings that Animation in flash has (until you stumble across Lilium. Look it up on newgrounds...there might be two 'L's.)
You look at this artwork and tell yourself, its amazing; anime is not the end of this topic, there are others. Photography, for one. You may see an amazing picture a big name took, you head online and realize there are fifty other shots sort of like it that have a bit more contrast, a bit more color, etc. and suddenly it is not that great.
deviantART.com is a great example of this; there are literally millions of amazing artists there, but they are not credited because there will always be someone better. Do you think that if Miyazaki, Watanbe- even Vincent Van Gogh- put up a new piece of work on the internet that no one had seen before, would it be as appriciated as it is with their name plastered to it?

The reason is that people have a tendency to copy other people's artwork, because they're not as creative. There's no such thing as "mainstream creativity", because once something ends up being mainstream, it is typically a dumbed down copy of something someone else made. The more obscure, most likely the better.

The average person just isn't creative. They may have dozens of clever tricks to make them seem like they are, but they aren't. The problem is, people don't want to think... they just want to be praised.

Personally, I look at the work before I think of the person who made it, so that wouldn't affect me, but I know what you mean. It's sort of like the "halo effect" (no, not the game dumbass) where if you've never known someone to be bad, you assume what they did was with good intentions, or they didn't actually do it... likewise, if you've never known someone to be good, you assume what they did was with bad intentions, or they didn't actually do it. When I say you, I'm refering to an individual with less than concious thought, not necessarily you.

So basically... a painter whose work you generally don't like, you never give a second chance, and a painter whose work you generally do like, you ignore bad works of art.

I don't know how many people the "halo effect" actually affects, but if people buying a painting which consists of only a few boxes for a large sum of money is any inclination, I would say a lot.

Different people get different things out of different works. I don't know if just because they buy colored boxes its because of the name. Maybe they enjoy cubism.
*bad pun there*

I thought it was funny...


its a catchy title and an oxymoron. That's why I used it

I could draw my own squares for less than a dollar if I were a cubisian.

There is a teacher at my school named Watanabe