re:Who is Art for?
I originally was going to write this post like my older riffs - arguing against the points and viewpoint of this blogpost which I disagreed with greatly upon reading it. However for the sake of avoiding another fiasco like another riff I posted months ago I'm going beyond rebutting the writer's points to share my view of the question and my advice for artists, as someone who himself has had a hobby of creating comics and art in general for his entire life. I hope everyone finds this helpful in some way.
Who is art for? That is a loaded question - considering the context presented in the original article. The knee jerk reaction is to proclaim that Art is for the Artist, of course - after all without the creator there is no creation. Therefore the original article can be understood as advocating for the respect of people who create any kind of art - though in this case we are specifically referring to 'indie animation pilots', a hyperspecific niche even within the confines of animation as a medium.
Saying Art is for Artists however is in my opinion severely misguided. It exaggerates the importance of an artist's role in building culture, even in or perhaps especially，in a hyperspecific context - to the point of putting down the audience as a concept. The article's writer says plainly in their writing that people who criticize Wastelandia have no idea what they are talking about and the content they create as a result of that - the critiques of Wastelandia - are a great abuse to the poor creators of this art. How can artists improve if they are to shove off any criticism they dislike? This is an unnecessary antagonization of said videos, but the writer goes much further than that.
The reason someone would characterize their perceived opposition in this way is simple: it's a persuasion tactic to endear the reader to the writer's side and in turn agree with and even spread the writer's views on any given topic. Honestly anyone can do it - it boils down to the 'I have drawn you as the soyjak and myself as the gigachad' meme.
In this aspect the article has succeeded as a pseudo-propaganda piece (anti-AI, anti-criticism, pro-indie animation) which can be hardly surprising if one pays attention to the popular tab on this blog service and what readers tend to upvote. The article however does not actually even attempt to examine the question, "Who is Art for?"
With that tangent aside I must return to my earlier assertion - downplaying the importance of "the audience" when discussing the utility, purpose or power of art can be directly linked to phenomena like the post-modern art movement and the adverse social reaction to it. In short, the same strain of unfounded ego running through post modern art similarly runs beneath the surface of people that produce Internet cartoons entirely revolving around their personal problems, or write angry articles about how the Internet cartoons they like are not treated 'preciously' by everyone that sees it.
How will that help artists in any way? How can artists grow if people have to ask for permission to critique their work? Putting such shackles on communication leads to the stagnation of artists' abilities. Furthermore it is revealing how the author at the end of the article tells artists reading to "continue creating cringe" - the use of cringe is emblematic of the kind of self aware insecure people that would be affected by critiques of their own art. Their solution to the insecurity is to embrace it and pretend this will make their work better, since they are 'truly expressing themselves'. Unless this mindset change leads to a actionable change in something like improving drawing techniques, fostering discipline in their craft or just garnering further experience via practice, it won't make the artist or their works better. The hard truth is the only way to truly know if your art has something to it is to expose it to eyes besides yours and yes, lampshading your own inadequacies does not a better artist make - so you need to be ready for the accountability being an artist inherently is, even for something others view as disposable. That is called having respect for yourself and your own profession.
Shocking that for how much the article waxes lyrical about how important artists are, it doesn't actually treat the title with respect and seriousness.
Dear artists, Art is not made for you. Art comes from you and it will be seen by the rest of the world. Believe it or not, the rest of the world has free will to not enjoy your art and articulate that to you, even without your consent. You need to stop being sensitive about your work. There is taking the opposite view too far, like being overcritical of your own work, but being overprotective of your work will not help you grow as an artist.
As an aside, the writer does not even engage with the opposing viewpoint in their article because they are "a firm believer in the subjectivity of art" which obliterates the arbitrary authority the article is built on. (A common argumentative self-own committed by terminally online individuals - confounding indeed)
Besides that I personally disapprove of telling artists that "art is subjective" because this is immediately contradicted by every online AND offline guide to any given artistic skill teaching the ground rules of said medium and teaching fundamental techniques to create art. Clearly there is a limit to the subjectivity where at that point everyone agrees on where to start, what to use and how to use it. This applies to even the horizons of an artist's imagination. At some point we can boil down every story in existence to its fundamental structure and its functional components. The _-act structure, the protagonist and antagonist, dramatic conflict, pacing, dialogue, setting and establishment, character arcs, the whole lot. What's subjective about any of that? Just reversing the dynamics doesn't count because at the core they are acting along the same axiom just in the opposite direction.
Just as with the original question posed, the article shows no understanding of the concept of subjectivity, nor does it explain what the world would actually mean - though that's understandable considering the aim of the original article.
As someone who's dream is to make comics for a living, I have had to grapple with this question myself. What is the point of my art? Who is my art for? - Perhaps the question to answer is Why anyone creates art.
I can only answer for myself, so here goes: I want to express my ideas, my sense of humor and my taste in cartoons and animation to other people who hopefully are on the same wavelength as me, or are open to understanding and appreciating those things. Which helps to answer who my art is for. They would be people who already like cartoons or people who want to be entertained by cartoons. And so they are the people I will respect.
So here's a final note to artists - you must respect other people in general and be genuine in trying to entertain them with your work. If you think you are above them, you will fail. Because you yourself are the audience. To be a good artist, you also have to be the audience and know how to be a good audience. That means you cannot just blindly praise the work you see, because then you are blind to the true value of it. So don't be afraid to criticize art and don't fear criticism, prompted or unprompted. You should be mentally resilient if you want to make it as an artist.
-coal
chunk of coal productions™, 2026.