Comments on: Will Watchmen Deserve Its Success?

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:22:59 +0000

Mike – Funny you should mention the Louvre…

Adam – Good points, but I don’t think there’s any contradiction with Lateral Action. We’re encouraging you to engage with an audience but without pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Lateral Action is for the greedy ones who want to make cool stuff AND sell it!

By: Adam Di Stefano

Adam Di Stefano — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:51:53 +0000

@Mark – thanks for the link to that article. Intriguing notions, and yet they seem to sort of stand opposed to the concept behind Lateral Action. You talk about commercial art (like advertising) being set near the audience end of the spectrum, while other art is set more towards the artist end of the spectrum. You also seem to suggest that the art that endures is that which comes from the artist end of the spectrum, yet I think we both agree that in order for an artist to endure, he must first achieve some form of success (a la Shakespeare, Darwin, Cobain, etc.) and in order to do that, he needs to market himself, which often involves moving towards the audience end of the spectrum.

It’s an interesting balance to say the least. One that I think I will be giving more thought to.

@Mike – That’s probably one of the best reviews of Watchmen I’ve read. I’m sold.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:38:59 +0000

Great comeback Mark !

I believe the director and producer gave the true fans of Watchmen exactly what they deserved…a film version of their graphic novels.

Those of us who had never read those 12 volumes were a bit pressed to keep up or catch on.

I was okay with that, for the sole reason that I can separate the facts that:

a) it’s only gonna last 2 hours and 40 minutes
b) it’s only $8
c) art hangs in the Lourve, not necessarily on the big screen
d) I came in there voluntarily
e) it’s GOTTA be better than Snakes On A Plane

All this film “deserves” is a chance to make you forget about real life for 2 hours and 40 minutes.

It did that completely.

I never had a single thought outside of the screen.

How many movies can you say that about ?

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:40:31 +0000

Ryan – OK, I’m sold on that idea!

Adam – Rest assured, millions of people can be wrong. The whole area of evaluating artistic work is fascinating. I don’t think there’s an objective standard though – the element of subjectivity is what makes things interesting.

A while back I wrote about the question of whether artists should give the audience what they want: http://www.wishfulthinking.co.uk/2007/12/17/should-artists-give-the-audience-what-they-want/

Mike –

I just sat thru 2 hours and 40 minutes of raw, graphic violence, mixed up with blue man porn

That’s cool, but have you seen Watchmen yet?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:40:22 +0000

I don’t know enough to pass judgment of the artistic merit, whether it deserves success or any of the other issues, but….

I just sat thru 2 hours and 40 minutes of raw, graphic violence, mixed up with blue man porn and lotsa words and I can tell you this one, simple thing…

It was worth $8.

Does anything else really matter ?

By: Adam Di Stefano - 52 Short Stories

Adam Di Stefano - 52 Short Stories — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:33:39 +0000

The biggest issue most creatives have with seeing success driven by marketing and not merit is that they are not good marketers. The romantic notion of most creatives is one of a recluse. A person whose sole focus is creating wonderful work. How that work gets discovered is a different matter entirely.

In reality, a successful creative, as Mark points out is someone who does great creative work and can get it marketed effectively. Jealousy seeps in for creatives who might be better at the creative part, but worse at the marketing part.

The other thing you need to look at is how you judge the value of a work. Is something good because it makes a lot of money? Is something good because a lot of people like it? Or is there some other objective standard that makes work “good.” That’s a tough question. I hated the Da Vinci Code, and I thought it was terrible writing, but hundreds of millions of people around the world disagreed with me, so maybe it really was good…

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:53:25 +0000

We are all in sales whether you admit it or not. From the high school english teacher who thumbs her nose up at “trashy popular novels” to the fast food fry cook. We all had to sell ourselves to get the job. If you think about it even “artistic merit” is used as a “sales tool”.

By: !maginality

!maginality — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:35:32 +0000

[...] There is (yet) another great post, and ongoing conversation, over at Lateral Action. The post by Mark begins with the premise, in the movie world, that the film Watchmen will be a commercial success due to the publicity it has gained through the legal dispute between Warner and Fox. I’m not going to get into the debate on this site, if you want that, then go and join in at Lateral Action. [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:30:12 +0000

Amy, Beth – thank you, you’ve each introduced a useful distinction, in Amy’s commercial agenda/artistic creation and Beth’s merit/awareness matrix.

I might ‘borrow’ them – with attribution, of course.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:28:35 +0000

If commercial success or the spread of an idea matters, then it’s the responsibility of the creative person to either find, or get someone else to find, that audience and increase their awareness of the work in question.

Exactly. And I think in most cases it should be the artist herself. Maybe not always, but the artistic vision needs to gel with the awareness campaign or things tend to go askew.