Best of luck. Fingers crossed it's nothing serious.

Now imagine everyone around you kept saying lemonade is amazing. You open social media and everyone is talking about lemonade. So, OUT OF CURIOSITY, you try lemonade. And you don't like it. And you say so.

"LET PEOPLE ENJOY THINGS!"
"STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE!"
"YOU JUST WANT TO HATE!"
"ELITIST!"

The absolute irony of the document having "DO NOT USE THIS TO HARASS UNRELATED PEOPLE" printed on the first page in bold, red font. Wow, just wow.

They justified Trayvon Martin's killing, they mocked George Floyd's killing, but now that it's one of their own, they're calling for empathy and asking us to think about his grieving family. Because when it's a racist white dude, suddenly, making light of a killing is "going too far".

Of course the media is sounding the alarms NOW, when a prominent right-winger is killed. Meanwhile, there's been yet another school shooting in Colorado. But apparently, there's nothing "extreme" about Charlie Kirk's opposition to gun control. It's only "extreme" when he reaps what he himself sowed.

No, I'm saying that they're not these cultured, benevolent "gift" givers you're making them out to-

Ah, forget it. Whatever. Yes, I'm evil, I want all artists to starve because I hate them all, cause I'm so jealous and petty. Congratulations, you got me.

I'm sorry, did I sell my IP rights to HBO and iTunes? Or did George R.R. Martin do that? Am I shilling a Patreon where I post my shitty fanart of other people's characters? No, I don't. But plenty of others do.

I don't sell my drawings because they don't make anyone's life better. Most art doesn't.

You're correct, I am jealous.

But I think you're focusing on a few outliers. Most artists are unremarkable, derivative, and far more a product of their culture than its shapers. The free art we're so "privileged" to see? Most of it is slop.

Meanwhile good stuff SELLS. It's not a "gift", it's sold.

I never said "whiny entitlement" was fine or acceptable! I'm saying that we shouldn't put artists up on a pedestal as if they're these great harbingers of culture.

Do you think the work of an artist is superior to that of a bus driver? A cashier? A trash collector? Let's stop worshipping creatives.

Or are you telling me he sold his rights to HBO and iTunes out of pure creative vision and love of the craft? That he doesn't at all enjoy getting residuals from his immensely profitable IP?

Bloody 'ell, wake up. Artists are not "enlightened intellectuals". Like most people, they work for money.

The context of this conversation is about how people are treating George R. R. Martin. Y'know, the author of "A Song of Ice and Fire"? "Game of Thrones", one of the most famous, successful TV shows ever?

I'm sorry, you're telling me I'M the one who's commodifying art and treating it like a product?

Yeah, that's what I said. "Fans aren't entitled to anything". If they pretend otherwise, they're acting extremely entitled.

I'm only pushing back on the messianic framing of artists as great benefactors, graciously bestowing upon us the privilege of... giving them money for some entertainment.

"Art is a gift", as if these authors aren't enormously wealthy because of actively marketing their art to a mass audience. Sure, fans aren't entitled to anything, but when you start collecting money from millions of people, statistically, some of those people will be unhinged. Occupational hazard.

I can sorta understand the feeling of being left out and the bitterness towards "talented elites" (who have the skills and resources I wish I had), but I can never understand the desire to make slop. It's as if AI bros want that power, but have no idea what to do with it beyond flaunting.

Whether they lie is irrelevant, because an author's opinions don't control what things mean. A racist stereotype is still racist even if the author genuinely believes they weren't being racist.

And that's not even my point. It's that deferring to authorial intent is a lazy non-interpretation.

Ah, so "interpretation" just means "repeat whatever the artist says their work means". No reference to your own personal experiences or broader cultural context, cause art has NEVER accidentally said something unintended by the author.

Got it. Why even be a critic at that point?

Also, Yume Nikki.

Please explain to me the foolproof method you have discovered for identifying a "work's purpose" as opposed to its "imagined purpose". Do we reach out to the author for a quote explicitly stating their intentions? What standard are you proposing critics use, other than an arbitrary, imagined one?