Screenshot / SBSBHS - De Bossen In and Cathedral
-
23-July 23
- Views 3,713
- Fans 2
- Comments 51
nedesigns
- Copyright © 2002-2024 New Element Designs
-
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
The pateron topic is quite interesting. A few thoughts:
Any other artist using patreon is seen as normal. Also, people host their art for free on deviantart, tumblr, youtube, twitter, instagram, facebook, so on and so forth. Music tracks, videos, digital images, physical images and other medium the artist scanned or took a photo of and uploaded, photography, on and on. You can get at quite a bit of it completely for free, yet you can still go support the artist if you like them and/or their work.
Even watch musicians on YouTube? They upload cover songs and original songs on YouTube, which you can listen to completely for free. You don't even need a YouTube account. But guess what? They probably have a Patreon. And you can either support them or not support them. Same goes for many other creators on YouTube, they upload content completely free of charge to the users, and many have Patreons. Sometimes Patreon members will be given privileges like voting on what content is next, but everyone still has access to the completely free content that YouTube hosts.
Honestly the Twitch point is good as well. You can make an account and go watch Twitch creators completely for free. Guess what? You can donate right to them on Twitch. Some might have supplemental Patreons. Same as YouTube above.
So YouTube and Twitch and Deviantart and Tumblr and other platforms are hosting creative content completely for free, just like NE.
Creators on those sites enjoying free hosting sometimes have Patreons while also keeping the content completely free via said hosting sites. It's perfectly ok over there.
But it's not ok on NE.
Did I get that right?
We could make a sequel to Gladsheim with all the axe grinding going on in here.
But advertising her Patreon on here is like if a guitarist went to a convention for guitarists and asked other guitarists for money for playing guitar.
That happens….
With all due respect, in my opinion the more accurate comparison would be a guitarist going to a guitar convention, playing songs for free and giving away song tracks for free, while mentioning that they have a patreon and that people have the choice to give or not give.
They'll still hear the artist in the end and still get the tracks if they want, all without having to give a single cent (or euro) to the artist.
To me, the mechanics are exactly the same.
A person can go on YouTube and watch OverSimplified's videos for free. Or a videogame playing creator, like Markiplier or whoever a person can think of. The creator might mention they have sponsors and patreons. But giving isn't required to watch.
So to me why is NE different?
Here are the facts about YouTube, Twitch, etc:
- Sites host content to no cost to the creators for hosting services (creators still invest monetarily into all necessary equipment and programs, etc.)
- Creators share content for free.
- Creators have a patreon that consumers can voluntarily give to, but this does not affect access to content.
So if I change the name "YouTube" to "NE", why can't the facts stay the same?
That's the point I'm driving at here. A person could replace YouTube with guitar conventions, and to me the mechanics are unchanged, except the digital space was changed to physical space. None of us pay to be here like a person might have to pay to get into a convention, just like none of us have to pay to use YouTube.
Art is created and shared for free -> content creator has a space where money can be donated -> there might be some minor perks to donation, but all the content ends up on the free hosting site in the end.
I think this all comes down to the who. Not the why. In terms of backlash. Which shouldn’t be the case
I guess I'm the only one with an issue with the hyper-commercialization of hobbies, so whatever.
this is actually a super common misconception regarding money, one i've fallen into myself. money exchanged for goods or services has always existed. millennia before the rise of capitalism.
capitalism is very specifically the ideology that money (think shareholder profits) should come before all else. think shell destroying the planet to make a quick buck. someone on the internet having an option to support their creative pursuit is not even capitalism, let alone hyper-capitalism. it is a direct line from your hand to the very creator. there is no wealth siphoned by a bourgeoise class or party which does not create.
I will say again - the world is the problem. people are struggling to make ends meet. if feels like you are out of one side of your mouth declaring capitalism as toxic and then the other side of your mouth is enraged that someone is trying to deal with the consequences of that capitalism. someone having an optional patreon is not even analogous to capitalism other than the fact that it involves money while existing on a capitalist planet.
you are correct to despise capitalism. we live in a world which has been ravaged by capitalism. I believe you are less correct to lash out at someone providing an option to support them which you are in no way obliged to even click to see their work when all is said and done.
it makes sense to me that someone might have an ick about involving money in their hobby. I think it is great that you are clearly so deeply passionate about the wellbeing of the community. is it then impossible for you to imagine that someone might feel that same passion and instead decide to support creators that have brought them joy? I think we would all contribute happily to an NE patreon. the least we could do for the poor souls who have to moderate such a thread
my apologies, i misread hyper-commercialisation as hyper-capitalism in the above quote.
i was confused with an earlier comment made by V1 on page 1 which is as follows: "Are you sure you aren't American? You might like the idea of living in a hypercapitalistic hellhole in which everyone always wants to squeeze every cent out of everything they are doing, but I don't."
however i still stand by my point, as the two are deeply conceptually linked.
The screen... it's nice and crunchy as usual. I love the tarps on the scaffolding, that's a subtle but great detail.
Not to fuel the fire... nothing wrong with using Patreon. I do agree about the monetization of hobbies being a bad thing though, although I personally find the idea of paying for access digital data itself to be very silly, conceptually. If I like an artist, I'll buy a poster or enjoy the free .jpeg edition. I won't buy an NFT... the 'Save as' button is right there.
There was a time when everything on the internet used to be free.... long time ago. T'was nice.