From Wikipedia: "Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, approved of the project, and an official Garfield book (also called Garfield Minus Garfield) was published by his company. It was mainly edited comics by Walsh, with some comics contributed by Davis."
[1] Garfield was originally created by Davis with the intention to come up with a 'good, marketable character' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield
That Davis did it for the money is just "meh". Most people work for money.
I don't think anybody is arguing comic authors shouldn't make money out of their work.
The concern is that Garfield is the product of conscious market research and not whatever we imagine a comic artist goes through when creating their comics. You can dismiss this as some ridiculous search for "purity", but wouldn't you say most people imagine Watterson, Schultz, etc. went through a process more or less "I liked these other cartoons, and wouldn't it be cool to make something about <idea>/<childhood memories>/<something that inspired me>/<something that worries me>" vs "hey, let's make money, what kind of character would make me the most money?".
Davis is not the only one, of course.
99% of everything commercially produced is somewhere between these and, if made by a person, part of a cannon, a body of work that grows and changes as the person does.
Just because an artist invites us into their mind does not mean we don’t owe them the respect we’d give a stranger. At least that’s how I look at it.
... wha?
... huh?
I've created so much art in my spare time, for the sheer love and joy of it. It's done for me, but I've shared it with friends and family and they've also greatly appreciated it, and sometimes participated in it with me with splendid results. Money has never entered the equation.
Am I missing something, or am I correct in my reading of that statement? If I'm correct, I don't mean to be judgemental, but that's a horribly disappointing view of art, whatever the medium, and I'm sorry that you feel that way.
We are social animals. Art is storytelling. It has many utilities, but it is primarily education and entertainment.
A modern version of the cave painting is to distill complex and uncomfortable truths about the world for those who wish to thrive in a society built on lies.
If you want to go dig shiny rocks from the mountain at great personal risk to your mental and physical health for no benefit to society you are probably sick. If it heals you, that's its utility.
But if you find you're good at it and you want to use this skill for its intended purpose, you aught to be getting paid for it.
*Your mileage may vary. Just my take.
If that all makes me "sick", then fuck yeah, proud to be mentally ill. It's truly sad that doing something for pleasure, education, love, fascination and reverence (like being fascinated about how our planet shaped itself, or learning to play the guitar because you love music and think it's fun) is viewed as "mad" or "sick" if there isn't some kind of monetary return. YMMV indeed, but money is not everything.
What's sick, in my eyes, is only being able to view things through the lens of monetary value.
I appreciate your perspective, but I hope you appreciate that mine is just aligned with a more social view of the world.
It can be, but it's not the only one.
> mine is just aligned with a more social view of the world
I wouldn't say this, no. It's just a money-oriented worldview, not a more social one.
In any case, I didn't say anything about art in my comment immediately above. I was disagreeing with your worldview.
I also didn't say anything about arts being less deserving of compensation.
Could you try addressing what other people actually say?