hating your own comic!

[Keffria]

I don't think that readers buy disclaimers like *bare with me for six months of archives, it gets better after that* very much.

Yeah, I hate it when an artist posts something like, "bear with me, 'cuz this comic is like four years old, and the art really sucks for the first two". I'm less likely to read something if the artist WARNS me that it sucks.

[Keffria]

However, what if you take the reader out of the equation? What if the artist isn't caring what the reader feels about the early art or the whole comic and it's archive in general? Like, depriving the readers any way to contact and voice concerns and questions about the comic. No forums, no shoutboxes, no chat, no email.

In that case, the artist doesn't have to operate under the gun and worry about what the readers are thinking (positive or negitive). Just give them what they came for, let them look it over, come back tomorrow.

Is it one way of skirting around a sloppy begining?

Why would you post anything on the internet if you didn't want people to see it, appreciate it, and give you feedback? If you drew only for yourself, why post it in a public place?

[Lei]

Well, right now our page is bare bones and has essentially no links and no contact routes, much to my dismay... the comic itself (the drawing of which I do), I'd love to improve by getting a better grasp of anatomy, better shading and line quality (I'm seriously contemplating a tablet instead of scanning), learning how to draw backgrounds and friggin' perspective *grumbles* and absorbing enough good writing skills from my literary-virtuoso friends to write dialogue that doesn't make people remove their eyeballs. >>

[Keffria]

However, what if you take the reader out of the equation? What if the artist isn't caring what the reader feels about the early art or the whole comic and it's archive in general? Like, depriving the readers any way to contact and voice concerns and questions about the comic. No forums, no shoutboxes, no chat, no email.

In that case, the artist doesn't have to operate under the gun and worry about what the readers are thinking (positive or negitive). Just give them what they came for, let them look it over, come back tomorrow.

Is it one way of skirting around a sloppy begining?

Why would you post anything on the internet if you didn't want people to see it, appreciate it, and give you feedback? If you drew only for yourself, why post it in a public place?

It's called a hobby; it's not used for personal gain. It's publicly posted just because I can.

Plus, when I tell people "Ya know, in addition to being a global playboy, I do have my own webcomic." it's a good way to look sauve and sophisticated.

I still don't understand the mindset. Part of any creative endeavour is imbuing your work with a message you want to communicate, and it doesn't have to be about personal gain. It can be as simple as "catgirls = HAWT" or a complex statement on postmodern therapeutic culture, but the point is that you are trying to provoke some kind of reaction in your audience, to create a relationship with them.

Feedback is a natural - indeed, a necessary - part of this relationship.

[Gengar003]

If you have a webcomic, you're saying "I like [contents of webcomic]," where contents may be as shallow as the plot, or the art, or it may be the message, or the endeavour.

Everyone has a reason, or they wouldn't be doing it. NOT everyone has the same reason. But yeah.

[JTigerclaw]

I still don't understand the mindset. Part of any creative endeavour is imbuing your work with a message you want to communicate. It can be as simple as "catgirls = HAWT" or a complex statement on postmodern therapeutic culture, but the point is that you are trying to provoke some kind of reaction in your audience, to create a relationship with them. Feedback is a natural - indeed, a necessary - part of this relationship.

I agree. It doesn't necessarily have to have a particular message or meaning though. Sometimes that just happens subconciously after the fact. When you sit back and look at the comic as a whole, you may get this message that you didn't know you were trying to make. The message doesn't have to be the driving force though. In the end, the comic will mean different things to different people. Some will see no message at all, even if you were trying to make one.

More importantly to me, it doesn't particularly matter if someone tells me my comic rocks. I'm still going to keep doing it, because I love to sit back and bask in the accomplishment and view what I've created. However, when you have so many other things going in life, and the webcomic starts to seem like a chore you are forced to do, having that one little voice saying "I love what you do, keep it up" is all I need to get back to being enthusiastic about it. Those little positive feedbacks are really the spark that continues to fuel the fire. You may keep doing the comic without it, but a little bit of encouragement goes a long way. It may inspire you to try harder, to be better, and that is reflected in the work you produce.

[Keffria]

I agree. It doesn't necessarily have to have a particular message or meaning though. Sometimes that just happens subconciously after the fact.

I'm inclined to think that *everything* has a meaning, albeit often only subconsciously. For example, take a look at the pin-up pictures in our dear M2's thread of hawtness. They're not just mindless titillation - aside from being quite hawt indeed, those pictures make a strong statement on what sorts of things we value in terms of feminine beauty.

[JTigerclaw]

I'm inclined to think that *everything* has a meaning, albeit often only subconsciously. For example, take a look at the pin-up pictures in our dear M2's thread of hawtness. They're not just mindless titillation - aside from being quite hawt indeed, those pictures make a strong statement on what sorts of things we value in terms of feminine beauty.

Yes, a picture of hawt will definately communicate that message, but it is doubtful that the main purpose for sharing the image with the web is to describe to others your personal definition of beauty (in most circumstances). And if the people viewing your hawt see that picture and think about the evolution of mankind's views on beauty and the feminine body, then perhaps you're going for the wrong audience.

[McDuffies]

I don't think that readers buy disclaimers like *bare with me for six months of archives, it gets better after that* very much.

Exactly. That's why there's stillborns.

However, what if you take the reader out of the equation? What if the artist isn't caring what the reader feels about the early art or the whole comic and it's archive in general? Like, depriving the readers any way to contact and voice concerns and questions about the comic. No forums, no shoutboxes, no chat, no email.

In that case, the artist doesn't have to operate under the gun and worry about what the readers are thinking (positive or negitive). Just give them what they came for, let them look it over, come back tomorrow. Those that don't like it can leave.

Is that one way of skirting around a sloppy begining?

Well, sociology says that art consists of three elements: artist, work of art and audience.
So throw audience out of equation is to deliberately miss the part of picture. This leads to simply not getting the most of your work. And it's a considerable effort, not something you'd want to waste. I am as much as anyone for doing art for your own joy, but joy of creation is just part of that joy. The other part is knowledge that someone likes your comic, that people read it, that you communicate with them through comic and then, through forums, shoutboxes and such.
I know that most of webartists think like me because, though there are webcomics that don't have either forum, tagboard, e-mail attached or any other sort of communication between reader and artist - they are very rare.
I guess what I'm saying is, though you have to be most important to yourself, you shouldn't neglect your audience as well. The worst assumption you can make is that you don't need to put any effort in making readers like your comic, that it will come by itself.

That said, I look at only a few comics from perspective of author. At all others, I look from perspective of reader, and that's the perspective from which I'm talking right now. And as a reader, I am not very interested in whether artist cares about me. Because the comic is there, I assume that it's there for me and other readers. I may find some interest in looking how artist's skills evolve over the years, but if I feel that first comics are too bad or too many and dragging the rest of material down, I won't care what artist's mothives are for sticking to those old comics.

I'm inclined to think that *everything* has a meaning, albeit often only subconsciously. For example, take a look at the pin-up pictures in our dear M2's thread of hawtness. They're not just mindless titillation - aside from being quite hawt indeed, those pictures make a strong statement on what sorts of things we value in terms of feminine beauty

Meaning is, I think, implanted there subconsciously from artist's character. His likes, dislikes, opinions, thoughts, the mish-mash of things that influenced him over the years, both philosophically and artictically, are displayed in the art. The message can, perhaps, be summed in: "This is me."
This is why I always banter about how people should find inspiration in themselves and things that surround them, not in tv, films, anime, or whatever pop culture they get in touch with on daily basis.
Now, depending on what character it is, this picture may be deeper or more shallow, more or less likeable, more or less interesting, more or less pretty... All in all, I think, it's brought down to this: if it's an interesting person, someone we'd like to know in person, we're more inclined to like his comics and to know him through his comic.

Then, of course, there are people who consciously try to bring a subtexted message into their art, and to be frank, that's the kind of art I like the most.

[JTigerclaw]

Yeah, that's probably what I would have said, had I the linguistic talent of mcduffies, who never fails to impress me with his wordy rebuttals.

[Col]

Getting back to the original topic: I don't like what I've done with my comic and where it's at now, and so it shall FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Getting back to the original topic: I don't like what I've done with my comic and where it's at now, and so it shall FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

A boot to the face?

[Col]

Getting back to the original topic: I don't like what I've done with my comic and where it's at now, and so it shall FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

A boot to the face?

AND THEN SOME!!!

[Vorticus]

Getting back to the original topic: I don't like what I've done with my comic and where it's at now, and so it shall FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

Well darn, I was hoping you were going to update.

[Keffria]

Okay, first of all, it's rather silly to compare an online comic to a film. For one thing, a movie is pre-scripted and filmed within a comparatively short period of time. The actors, if they suck, will be just as crappy at the beginning of the film as at the end, same with the cinematography, the music, etc. A webcomic, by contrast, is something that evolves -- indeed, we *expect* it of a novice webcomic artist. I can only think of one or two comics offhand that haven't shown much improvement within their respective runs. And although one may have a script, most webcomics aren't fully scripted or necessarily even fully plotted when production begins.

Furthermore, most webcomic readers don't see the process behind the art, either, unless the artist posts a detailed tutorial. They, too, are "left in the dark" until the page goes up on the internet. But both movies and webcomics are subject to immediate criticism as soon as the audience has experienced the end product. For webcomics, it may come in the form of a post on a tagboard or one of Teammayhem's reviews; for a film, it may be a review in a newspaper or an article on the internet.

Do you think that film producers don't look at any of this stuff? When a film gets poor reviews, don't most producers read them and attempt to put the suggestions to good use (albeit rarely successfully)? Why is it that when, say, a movie about a natural disaster or a bunch of talking bugs does well, you get a whole slew of copycat films?

And even to make a film, you begin with an idea, a script, which you will review and rewrite with multiple editors in order to make it "right". And even when you've filmed it, it gets played around with, cut up, shown at test screenings, re-evaluated... etc., etc. Making a movie is a process that necessarily involves input from far more people than just the creator(s).

Webcomics have the advantage, then, in that they are directly shown to audiences without having to go through that middleman, meaning that instead of sitting down with a team and thinking, "what would the audience like?", the creators can simply post a comic and get instant feedback.

But this is kind of beyond what I was trying to say. The idea of completely shutting out criticism is entirely possible, but it's also ludicrous. If you are given a tool, why not use it? I am not saying that one has to take the readers' words to heart - only that I don't understand why someone wouldn't want feedback. I believe that Marx - among numerous other people - said that when one produces something, a part of one's self is put into it, and that alienating oneself from (failing to make a connection with) the recipient of this product cheapens the value of one's creative labour.

*edit* I think that was the longest post I've ever made. *waves flags and such*

[Jamal23227]

well. it's the gay bashing. thanks to the feedback, i removed the offensive from the archives. my comic could use lesbians.



http://peno.comicgen.com

[Keffria]

Not just (negitive) criticism, everything. You're making it sound as if I'm only ignoring the bad stuff that I don't want to hear.

I apologize for not clarifying; to me, criticism is both postive and negative feedback. I still don't understand WHY one would want to shut feedback out altogether.

As for the idea that Marx is dated, I totally agree that going over his economic theories is like flogging a long-decayed horse, but I also think that - as with most philosophical concepts - one can apply his ideas in a broader sense. And having just gone through an exhaustive discussion of his ideas on alienated labour in a series of sociology (a subject firmly stuck in the past, it seems at times) tutorials, I have Marx on the brain. Although he was referring to the idea of capitalism alienating the worker from his product and from the person who purchases it, the idea of putting one's very self into one's creative endeavours is not restricted to "work" alone.

And the fact is that if you go into webcomicking and refuse to interact with your audience in a meaningful manner, not only are you missing out on a fundamental - and enjoyable - aspect of the "scene", you're also going to come off as a jerk* to your readers.

*Note that this is not a personal attack; I haven't read your comic nor do I know you well enough to call you a jerk.

[McDuffies]

A movie, that dying art form,

Complete nonsence. Film is as vital as ever.

is an example of auidence exculsion. When the auidence arrives, they all take a seat and wait. When the film starts, everyone stays quiet and watches the film. When it's over, everyone is allowed to voice their concern with the film and it's highs and lows.

There is no (usually) no breaks or intermissions durring the enitire screening. Not one opertunity for someone to stand up and cite a plot hole or comment on a paticular scene. Everyone sits there, in the dark, from start to finish.

If something is objectionable or vulgar in the film, the partron knows where the emergency exits are.

The thing is, the film isn't going to care, the production company does. They are the ones who have to field questions about content and technical innarcuracies; and they only do so AFTER an auidence has screened the film. They can't change what the auidence has already seen, they can't re-write the script, they can't re-shoot a scene. Nothing can be done to make the auidence 100% satisfied because the auidence doesn't withness any of the film production process; they only see the end result.

There are many ways in which audience lets producer know what they think about the movie.
-Word of mouth is the most deciding for financial succes. People go to cinema because their friends suggested the film. If what you told was true then the financial success depends only on proper advertising of the film. However, there are many examples of big, ambicious project that put a lot of money in drawing people to cinema - that simply financially flunk ("Heaven's gate", "Ishtar"), or many low-budget films that aren't even edvertised, who turn out to be surprise hits ("Clerks"). Many films' financial success is a result of audience going and re-watching the same film all over again ("Titanic", "Star trek").
-Makers of the movie regulary observe reactions of audience, specially on premieres. If the film is a comedy, they expect to hear laugh from the audience, etc. Very often, bad reception on premiere results on major re-cutting of the film ("Eraserhead" is one example that pops into my mind).
-In extreme cases, audience participates in projection. Like bringing transparents "When is this shit going to end" to projection of "Freddy got fingered" or, on the other end of the scale, dressing like characters from "Rocky horror picture show" when going to projections.
-Critics, who are part of the audience, are able to sink the film with bad reviewes.
-Films are often created by what was popular at audience in the past, which is also a sort of participation of audience. Also, popular films draw sequels or remakes.

It's also how I operate. I'm the production company, my comic is the film.

That doesn't make you similar to production companies.
As I said, production companies listen to the voices from audience very much before they start making the film. Production companies - they are consortiums of people and none of them makes decisions by himself. Even if they don't know how the movie is going to turn out in the end, they make sure that there is the least possible risk for financial disaster. You are very different because you (by your own words) don't listen to audience at all, and don't really care whether they're going to read your comic or not. I think it's obvious that production companies can't afford to not care about such thing.

[Col]

Getting back to the original topic: I don't like what I've done with my comic and where it's at now, and so it shall FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

Well darn, I was hoping you were going to update.

Yeah, that'll be part of it, sort of.



OBS: Could you provide a link to your comic? I'm curious to see what it is you're making with the knowledge that you don't give a hoot what people think about it. Don't take that as a flame, by the way. I really am interested in seeing the comic knowing this bit about you. It's a little strange to me, because if you don't care what the audience has to say about your work, why do you bother to put it on the internet? I would assume it would be to let other people see what it is you've created. But why bother with that when you can't hear what they think about it? Does your comic have a set ending? Is it a story with a beginning, middle, and end? Wouldn't you want to find out what the audience's reaction to it was afterwards?

I've always been of the opinion that if someone really didn't want people to see their comic or to hear their reactions to it, they wouldn't post it on the internet. If someone really didn't care about what other people thought, it's really a waste of time on the author's part to post it for the public to see. Therefore I'm curious to see what your comic is like, to see if I can tell that it's absolutely being written for the author and the author alone. And I promise I won't tell you what I thought about it. ...Maybe...

[Hale]

Not having time to draw it. Changing your major frome english to engineering is like teaching a turtle how to fly.

That or

not being as popular as I think I should be