what keeps you hooked/addicted

[Arcadia]

Hmmmm. I don't think that's quite right, but that's really not the issue. The issue, as I understand it, is that the term "fan art" is considered derogatory and therefore should be dropped, yes? So the question is, why does this art have its own label? What do "fan artists" do that sets them apart from, say, "graphic artists" or "portrait artists"? It's not because they're bad artists, or because they're painting portraits of celebrities; Norman Rockwell painted dozens of famous people, but I've never heard his work referred to as "fan art." (I've heard it called bad art, though! ) So what's the difference?
 
Hint: where would you see fan art? Where would you see Norman Rockwell's? :-)

[sfmpco]

Oh I totally disagree that Norman Rockwell's art was bad.  It is great.  He was a superb portrait artist.  

 

I do feel that "fan art" should just be art.  Yes, it feels derogatory.  The same with fan fiction.  Also feels derogatory and seems to invalidate the writer, just as "fan art" seems to invalidate the art.  Oh, that can't ever be considered REAL art.  That's just fan art.  And this from the same snobs who think a canvas painted all black should hang on the wall of the Metropolitan Museum of Art as art.  Thanks, but I'll take fan art over than nonsense any day.

[Arcadia]

I like his art too, but I understand the rap against it. I just don't agree with the rap against it. I also understand why the black canvas is in the Met, although I wouldn't give you a dime for it myself. (I do like some of those "white on white" canvases in the National Gallery, though!)

 

I have a friend who writes what she considers "mainstream" fiction. However, since it's published by an imprint known for it's romance novels, it always ends up in the romance category on the bookstore shelves. She doesn't like it, but the only way she can change it is to write her novels in such a way as to attract a "mainstream" publisher. But she writes what she likes, and what she likes is categorized as romance. Circle complete.

 

My point is, if an artist doesn't want to be known by a certain label, then they're the only ones that can do something about it, by proving the label wrong. If they don't do the things that "fan artists" do, then no one will be able to distinguish them from any other kind of artist. But that might mean giving up something they don't want to give up. Everyone's got to decide what's more important to them; the work they do, or how people receive it? Then go from there.

[Carol the Dabbler]

My understanding of the distinction is that fan artists and writers don't expect to be paid for their work.  So it's a type of amateur art, which again does not necessarily mean inferior.  But it's also unjuried for the most part (so, yes, a good bit of it is inferior).  And finally, it's done as a tribute to some specified book or movie or whatever -- which help may explain why no remuneration is expected.

 

I don't necessarily see "fan" as a derogatory adjective.

 

[Inge l-w]

Dear lovely, patient Carol, if you took a look through Tumblr, you would see how toxic "fan art" can be! Not only in AoO, where, at least, the printed word and the tags keep things in a sort of balance, but in the whole fan art world one thought reigns supreme: how to get into those well-tailored trousers and seduce their owner by fair means (Molly, Dr Watson, Lestrade, Irene) or foul ( Moriarty, Mary, Moran, Mycroft, Magnussen). The longer this hiatus lasts, the higher the flights of fancy will soar! Funny, really, that all the foul ones start with the letter M!

[Arcadia]

My understanding of the distinction is that fan artists and writers don't expect to be paid for their work. So it's a type of amateur art, which again does not necessarily mean inferior. But it's also unjuried for the most part (so, yes, a good bit of it is inferior). And finally, it's done as a tribute to some specified book or movie or whatever -- which help may explain why no remuneration is expected.

 

I don't necessarily see "fan" as a derogatory adjective.

Yup, that, and "fan" art usually shows up on "fan" websites, not "serious" art galleries. (Although the latter might benefit from it! :P )

 

I'll bet a lot of people do find the phrase derogatory, though. Just like "amateur" is sometimes used as a derogative. Can't be helped, imo, you just gotta move on with what you do and hope you find the right audience.

[J.P.]

 

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. As fan labor, fan art refers to artworks that are neither created nor (normally) commissioned or endorsed by the creators of the work from which the fan art derives.

A different, older meaning of the term is used in science fiction fandom, where fan art traditionally describes original (rather than derivative) artwork related to science fiction or fantasy, created by fan artists, and appearing in low- or non-paying publications such as semiprozines or fanziness, and in the art shows of science fiction conventions. The Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist has been given each year since 1967 for artists who create such works. Like the term fan fiction (although to a lesser extent), this traditional meaning is now sometimes confused with the more recent usage described above.

Source: Wikipedia (what else?)

 

The slash-y things should be called a totally different animal. Because the first encounter with it might be such a shock, it seems to stay in people's heads as THE example of fan art. ;)

 

What is "art" anyway? 

 

And fanart contains everything from digital paintings of Alice X.Zhiang or ones like this to joyful creations done by amateurs for the sake of creating and enjoying the subject matter.

 

One of the problems of modern era is the broad availability of Photoshop and such, so many of the works are merely more or less altered photos/screenshots. But on the other hand, even under slash-y/ship-y works (or Manga style comics, which I usually don't like) there are some pieces of stunning quality and originality.

 

As my favorite blogger wrote - sadly only the bad works seem to make it into media. Which is sad and absolutely don't do justice to the phenomenon.

[Shadow Dweller]

Believe it or not, one of them is tea. Every time I see a can of tea it is a reminder of SHERLOCK

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

Everyone's got to decide what's more important to them; the work they do, or how people receive it? Then go from there.

 

All that matters is the work! :P

 

I honestly do see why people think fanart is something spawned from the depths of Hell (just google "sonic the hedgehog ocs" for examples), but what I don't understand is why people judge the whole entire fandom by a few paltry attempts at art. Don't judge the fan by the fandom, or the fandom by the fan!

 

[J.P.]

Hmmmm. I don't think that's quite right, but that's really not the issue. The issue, as I understand it, is that the term "fan art" is considered derogatory and therefore should be dropped, yes? So the question is, why does this art have its own label? What do "fan artists" do that sets them apart from, say, "graphic artists" or "portrait artists"? It's not because they're bad artists, or because they're painting portraits of celebrities; Norman Rockwell painted dozens of famous people, but I've never heard his work referred to as "fan art." (I've heard it called bad art, though! ) So what's the difference?

 

Hint: where would you see fan art? Where would you see Norman Rockwell's? :-)

 

Well, I love Rockwell. Even if my adoration is more for his skills than the content or message. I see him more as a wonderful artisan than an artist - imagine you have to provide a painting a week! and that for years alone for his job for... what weekly was it? He made extended preparations, used photos or models. It's impressive.

 

I had an incredible luck - few weeks after I saw a TV feature about him (I knew some of his pictures but didn't know the name before) I flew to Washington DC, and - totally by accident - stumbled upon a big NR exhibition. This was a wonderful experience, not only because of the quality of his paintings, but also because unlikely any other art exhibition I attended, all visitors (including myself) were beaming with joy and smiling happily.

 

But I digress...

[Carol the Dabbler]

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. As fan labor, fan art refers to artworks that are neither created nor (normally) commissioned or endorsed by the creators of the work from which the fan art derives.

A different, older meaning of the term is used in science fiction fandom, where fan art traditionally describes original (rather than derivative) artwork related to science fiction or fantasy, created by fan artists, and appearing in low- or non-paying publications such as semiprozines or fanziness, and in the art shows of science fiction conventions. The Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist has been given each year since 1967 for artists who create such works. Like the term fan fiction (although to a lesser extent), this traditional meaning is now sometimes confused with the more recent usage described above.

Source: Wikipedia (what else?)

 

Whuh? I remember sf fandom in the late 60's and early 70's, and believe me, there was plenty of "derivative" fan art on display. Yes, there was some highly original stuff -- new species of alien made up by the artist and so on. But there were definitely lotsa Spocks, fan illustrations for well-known novels, etc.

 

Well, I love Rockwell. Even if my adoration is more for his skills than the content or message. I see him more as a wonderful artisan than an artist - imagine you have to provide a painting a week! and that for years alone for his job for... what weekly was it?

The Saturday Evening Post.

 

[Arcadia]

 

 

Everyone's got to decide what's more important to them; the work they do, or how people receive it? Then go from there.

 

All that matters is the work! :P

 

I honestly do see why people think fanart is something spawned from the depths of Hell (just google "sonic the hedgehog ocs" for examples), but what I don't understand is why people judge the whole entire fandom by a few paltry attempts at art. Don't judge the fan by the fandom, or the fandom by the fan!

 

Sensationalism sells.

[J.P.]

For me much more difficult to answer is the question: what makes us addicted.

What is the deciding factor, the line between "oh, that's good" and "OMG!"?

The effect is similar to falling in love, but there are no pheromones at play... So what happens in our little funny brains?

[Arcadia]

Good question! One I have no idea how to answer. The old Japanese anime "Yamato", e.g. ... it's cheesy as can be, I know it, and yet I've adored it from the moment I saw it. :D

[J.P.]

Have you obsessed about it the way we do about Sherlock?

[Arcadia]

I used to! I still have lots of toys, posters etc. that I wouldn't get rid of for anything. But we didn't have internet, so it was different. Harder to find like minded people.

[Carol the Dabbler]

My obsession occurred in two stages.  The first stage started about ten minutes into "Study in Pink," when I realized that this was no ordinary program -- the characters were actually interesting, and even though it was a drama, it was funny in a very satisfying way.  Alex and I were both sufficiently hooked that we not only made a point of watching the rest of Series 1 and immediately ordered the DVD, we pre-ordered the Series 2 DVD as soon as that was possible.

 

Then "Reichenbach" happened.  Sherlock was no longer just a damned good show, it was the sort of personal phenomenon that I had not experienced since discovering Star Trek forty-five years earlier.

 

Of course, that doesn't really answer your question, does it?  Why did it have that effect on me?  All I can say is, it got to me and grabbed me by the gut.  I think it's John Watson's fault.

 

[T.o.b.y]

For me much more difficult to answer is the question: what makes us addicted.

What is the deciding factor, the line between "oh, that's good" and "OMG!"?

The effect is similar to falling in love, but there are no pheromones at play... So what happens in our little funny brains?

I fell for Sherlock when I first heard his voice, and that was when I saw A Study in Pink in English. I had previously seen The Great Game in German and been interested enough to rent the DVDs, but it took the original audio to really captivate me.

 

Sherlock is precisely what would have happened if someone had written a hero just for me. He's just perfect, his looks, voice, personality, nationality, occupation, talents, age group - everything. Plus I already had a huge crush on the book character when I was a teenager.

[J.P.]

 

Sherlock is precisely what would have happened if someone had written a hero just for me.

 

And I remember myself thinking: God, what I would give to be able to write a character like Sherlock, in a tale like Sherlock... Parts of the story felt like a perfect unwritten narrative, that seemed to sleep somewhere very deep inside my mind.

[J.P.]

Just a thought that occurred to me at this anniversary day:

Actually we don't mind waiting that much. We are able to take care of us during the hiatus being ridiculously creative.

Was roaming a Russian websites and - as so many times before - I'm in awe of the talent poured into fan-art.

[J.P.]

Another nice aspect of being a fan - you never know where the journey takes you. Not only physically, but also in your mind. Suddenly I'm reading (trying to) Shakespeare or watch Coriolanus on YouTube (the one with Ralph Fiennes), something that is a bit out of character for me.

[besleybean]

I saw Tom Hiddleston as Coriolanus and he was really good, but the film is excellent.

[J.P.]

... or I find myself choosing classical music for a long car drive. Which has to do not with the show but with one actor's friend.

[Inge l-w]

Today's occurrences have made it a red-letter day for all of us! Being Sherlock Holmes fans, we sort of read all the ACD translations to the younger generation from the moment Pipi Langstrumpf had been learned by heart. But today, after lighting the obligatory Advent candle, I decided to surprise the ten-year-old by presenting her with an Oxford Bookworm series Level 1 in English ( which is about pre-intermediate) called Sherlock Holmes Plays (contents: The Red-Headed-League, The Three Students). She practically snatched it out of my hands, and as the others (better half and the eight-year-old) were busy building a Lego Star Wars something), I asked her if she would like to be Holmes, and I would read all the other parts plus the scene settings.

"No, I don't want to be Holmes: he always talks too much!" (Martina has watched S1, HOB and SoT)

Of course, by the time she realised her mistake, (Spaulding, Wilson, Ross, Jones, Merriwether and Dr Watson) I was doing my best JB imitation.

However, it was the youngster who, Lego project completed, leaned over us as we were lying on the carpet, and read his first complete English sentence: "You reasoned it out beautifully." OK, we shall have to work on the accent, but it resulted in a tussle: Martina exclaimed that she was Watson, not he, the legal adults had to intervene to stop the mayhem!

[T.o.b.y]

I think what keeps me hooked is very similar to being in love. Fictional-character-love, which is not like real-person-love but a strong and wonderful feeling nontheless.

 

I have been on a kind of personal hiatus for a while, due to various reality-related bothers, and now I'm back and it's like bumping into your first crush in the street. I feel like Mrs Hudson: "Sheeerlock!"