One of my fellow fanartists sent this message, and I wasn’t sure if she wanted me to publish her name, but she asked a really good question:
I was talking to a friend of mine whom I haven’t seen for some time and she’s missed the part where I became a so-called fan artist. She’s an artist herself and she was like “I don’t get fanart. Why do people do it? What is the reason?” And I couldn’t find one except that I love these shows and I love portraits. I feel like that wasn’t an explanation at all, though. What would you say? Why fanart? Why not anything else? I felt so awkward. I didn’t expect I would have to explain myself to another artist…
This happens to me a lot.
Most of the time, I just call myself a pop artist. Artists who don’t understand fanart know what pop art is. They know Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe. They know “the artist who painted Ben-Day dots.”
I almost never explain fanart as fanart to people unless they are genuinely receptive. In my experience, when someone says, “I don’t get fanart,” they usually do get fanart, but they don’t like it, and they expect you to defend it. “I don’t get fanart” is code for “Why are you wasting your time drawing this?”
I don’t waste time explaining myself to those people.
But for times when I think someone is genuinely receptive, or for times when I’m tired of the stigma of “fanart” and “fangirl,” and I’m fed up with feeling ashamed to call myself a fanartist, and I don’t think neatly fitting myself under the male-established pop art umbrella is satisfactory enough, and I’d rather be a loud motherfucker who pisses everyone off, which is always, I might say something like this:
The fanart I make is similar to pop art, but instead of commenting on pop culture as a whole, I share my art with a tightly knit and passionate community of mostly women and people in the queer community who are also fans of that story. And together, our communityas a whole disestablishes male-dominated media by reclaiming mainstream stories for the minority. Fanart is a form of underground or outsider art, and it’s one powerful way that we take from a story and its characters the things that we relate to the most or enjoy the most as women and members of the queer community and transform them into our own stories and derivative works of art in order to reclaim the mythology that has been taken from us by a straight, white, patriarchal media.
I think the key word in all of that is “community.” Fanart is something you do because you want to be part of a community.
Gosh, you don’t even have to worry about what bills I pay. All you see is my hobby. Isn’t that nice of me?
You know what. No. I have more to say.
This pisses me off. The implication that 45 is too old for a woman to have fun is fucking bullshit.
JJ fucking Abrams is 50, and he’s a fanboy. He’s making AUs, and he’s doing the exact same thing as any fangirl is doing only with a much bigger budget. There are plenty of dudes just like him, too. Comic book artists, writers, directors—all men, all older than me, (I’m 35 by the way, not 45) who are no different. The only difference is that their work is called work and not “being a fangirl.” Their work is respected. Even though fangirl is exactly what they are.
So fuck your jealousy, fuck your misogyny, and most of all fuck you for presuming to know a goddamn thing about my life and what kind of hard work I’ve had to do—not just to draw this well (read: better than you) but to allow myself to be happy about it when the whole entire world has decided I’m not allowed to be. Fuck you for every girl you ever made feel foolish or pathetic for not sacrificing every bit of herself to you.
THIS
You can’t hear it, but I’m clapping for you right now. This. All of this. It’s absolutely perfect. Go you. Fuck them.
Plus, dude, the Renaissance Era is full-on people being forbidden to draw/sculpt/write anything else than Greek and Roman Mythology(/fairy tales) Fanart (or Christian stuff). At the end of it there were debate over debate about “The Ancient and the Modern” as in : the Ancient had come up with the only possible creative stuff, now poor ol’ us cannot do anything better and don’t you dare be original. Tell any French person that Jean de la Fontaine was pathetic because he wrote fanpoems of Aesop and they’ll laugh in your face. The man managed to full on criticize the King who created Absolute Monarchy through poems that are still learned by every person in the country nowadays. Or say that about
Michelangelo or Botticelli. Most of these artists had fun and many loved Greek Mythology. The idea that everything “has” to be original stems more from a reaction to that time period than to an objective Reality.
Yes but EVERYONE YOU MENTIONED IS A MAN.
Michelangelo, Fontaine, Botticelli. Da Vinci, whoever else. Painters, sculptors, writers.
Whenever people use the argument “Renaissance art is just fanart of the Bible or Greek myth” or whatever else, they’re forgetting that all of that stuff was made by men. The reason it’s legitimate and the reason we hang it in museums and remember it isn’t because it’s fanart of the Bible—it’s because men did it.
The second men don’t do it, it stops being legitimate. Of course Renaissance art is fanart. OF COURSE IT IS.
I know fangirls who could out-scholar a room full of Shakespeare professors. I know fangirls who are the greatest writers, the greatest artists, the greatest talents you’ve ever seen. The most passionate, brilliant ladies speaking more passionately and giving more of their time to the things they love than any man. But because they’re fangirls—the operative word being girls—everyone is waiting around for them to grow up and stop this foolishness.
And what a huge loss. What a huge fucking loss.
The absolute best part is that, even if you caved into their stupid demands, they’d still complain, “Why aren’t you doing fan art any more? no one wants to see your original characters!” and other bullshit.
There’s no appeasing these fucking fools who sit and try to dictate how you should live your life, because it’s not that they are upset you are doing something, they are upset you are a WOMAN doing something.
You are 100% right, the reason that when I was in grade school classes talked about art and poems and stuff of people from long ago is because they were made by men and they are considered valid. The reason that women throughout time have sat down and used a pseudonym on their work is so that people would think they were men, so that their work would be taken seriously.
It’s all a stupid world, a world built by old white men who are afraid of people doing what they want, doing what they like, having fun, because they don’t understand it, because they are sexist or homophobic or whatever, they are afraid; They have power as long as you bend to their will and don’t do what you want, don’t enjoy your life, so screw them, scare them, do what you want and have fun doing it!
me, banging your pots and pans together at 3am: the assumption that liking problematic characters means you share their views is toxic. people should not have to constantly defend their views simply because they enjoy a character of questionable nature.
you, attempting to wrestle them from me: indeed, but there comes a responsibility with enjoying problematic characters and it is on those who consume that media to recognize and constantly acknowledge the faults of it rather than sweep them under the rug with a general “i know it’s problematic don’t worry”.
me: it seems both our sides of the argument are valid and hold merit.
you: will you please get out of my house now
your neighbor, shouting through the wall: however when the person enjoying the problematic material is constantly harassed and called out for that content and has to face regular demands to justify their appreciation of that media, then the other party needs to step back and ask what they even want from this confrontation they keep perpetuating. they need to ask themselves if they will be satisfied with any given answer and if not, they need to disengage and deal with their own issues instead of forcing other people to answer for them.
This is a painting of Jacek Malczewski called simply ‘Death’ and it’s my favourite personification of death in any medium.
She’s not creepy or scary, or sexy, or abstract. She is this thick woman with worn hands, dressed as normal, with a non-stylised scythe and pins in her hair: like a farmer’s wife that just came form the field and rests against the wall, catching some sun. She is not creeping about the dying one holding her scythe over their head, she is just there, calmly waiting her turn.
This painting always fills me with peace and optimism when I think about death. She is just there, outside the window, in no hurry at all, sensible and down to earth. I can live with that.
i believe very passionately in doing absolutely nothing for as long as you want or need without feeling guilty about it because capitalism sees free-time as its mortal enemy. the lack of free-time is the death of creativity, personal reflection, real sleep, and just sheer goddamn relaxation. capitalism realizes it must crush this in order to squeeze every last drop of cash and blood it can out of you before it discards your dried up and utterly spent husk onto the burning trash heap. do as much nothing as you can.
I
was briefly talking with @i-want-my-iwtv yesterday in regards to all
the “excitement” surrounding possible casting choices in the new TVL
film to which I brought up my personal choice for the Brat Prince
himself.
You may recognize Sam Claflin better as Finnick Odair from the Hunger Games
series. In fact, it was Claflin’s portrayal of Finnick which led to me
considering and then later choosing him as Lestat in my fancast, with
many similarities between the two characters.
*Note: my fancast only contains actual actors/actresses- not models or
any other sort of face claim. So, all picks essentially have acting experience
for me to base my choices on. If I were to choose a face claim, it would have to be Martin
Rowlinski, considering when Lestat visits me in my kinky dreams, he looks like
Martin Rowlinski (there was another dream where he was in a Pride parade
with a bright green fishnet top and rollerblades, but I’ll save that
for another time).
So why Sam Claflin? For starters,
Claflin facial and bodily characters match those of the book’s not just
in detail, but in expression and movement of them as well.
Here’s
Claflin himself rocking the shoulder length blonde hair as Prince William in Snow White and The Huntsman, not
necessarily curly but with some wave to it. Sam Claflin is 5′11″ and 30 years old according to IMDB, so the height is a close match. As for the age, he’s very youthful looking, and age hasn’t stopped Anne in her own choices so, I think it’s fine. As for the well shaped but
large and animated mouth…well…
These were too great to not include…
Claflin
also has a lot of experience with one particular character type that
will be handy in portraying Lestat, and that is the romantic action
hero. He might not always be the central character when he takes on this
trope, but Claflin’s character will always be involved in a plot angle
focused on love, beauty, blind bravery, and heroics. A sassy, snarky
attitude may or may not be included alongside that heart of gold (but is
more than not). For good or evil intent, I feel this is a key part of
Lestat’s character, but not the only key part.
Hit the (Read More) for the full explanation…Well? Go on.
I remember first learning that you can cry from any emotion, that emotions are chemical levels in your brain and your body is constantly trying to maintain equilibrium. so if one emotion sky rockets, that chemical becomes flagged and signals the tear duct to open as an exit to release that emotion packaged neatly within a tear. Everything made sense after learning that. That sudden stability of your emotions after crying. How crying is often accompanied by the inability to feel any other emotion in that precise moment. And it is especially beautiful knowing that it is even possible to experience so much beauty or love or happiness that your body literally can’t hold on to all of it. So what I’ve learned is that crying signifies that you are feeling as much as humanely possible and that is living to the fullest extent. So keep feeling and cry often and as much as needed
so what you’re saying is that when i cry tears of rage it’s because i have more rage than is humanly possible to hold inside
It could be wrong in EVERY possible way. *hugs* It will definitely be wrong in SOME WAY to SOMEONE bc we all have different headcanons.
BUT, that said, and having cuddled you warmly, it’s just a movie! Your headcanons are yours and you can retreat into fanfic 😉 That’s what I did re: movie!QOTD which I have like 12% care for (and most of that goes to Aaliyah).
Just bc the cover of the script had “Interview with the Vampire” as the title for this project, that doesn’t mean he’s redoing that movie.
It’s possible that Josh Boone & Co. don’t want people to confuse this project with the musical!TVL. And IWTV is the more recognizable title to sell it on. They intend to make a trilogy and spinoff series, and in order to do that, they need to at least include some of the first book.
I think @firelight-fading put it really well in their post here, which I will quote some lines from, (I bolded a few things for emphasis):
I think everyone needs to keep in mind that everyone doesn’t share a collective mind- everyone read these books individually so everyone is going to have a different opinion on how certain plot events happened and how certain characters look. Boone is one of those people and he’s the one in control of how this film will look and develop…
#Your headcanon may vary😉
On that note, just because a new film is coming out doesn’t mean that the values of past productions, like the IWTV movie with Tom Cruise, decrease. You can still enjoy it. You can still view Tom Cruise as the “perfect” Lestat. You can still choose to ignore the new film. What the new film does mean for the fandom is possible growth. Old loves for the books series will be rekindled and people will hopefully return. New fans will emerge who enjoy the film or are curious about the books. Considering Rice has lessened her hold on fanfiction restriction, that means more fanworks will possibly be generated. Lots of good things on the way even if the film is a flop.
So all in all, stay positive, go see the film to support Rice and the series if anything and if you don’t like it then it’s a done deal and you can fall back on other VC-related works. We’ll get through this irregardless.
So I’m re-reading the Vampire Chronicles, and discovering all over again that I love the way Anne Rice depicts sexuality, attraction, and affection in her books, not just among vampires, but among humans as well.
People in platonic relationships never hesitate to say that they love each other, to show affection, to kiss.
Sexual orientation doesn’t seem to exist, really, especially with the undead. It seems that a century or two of immortality has rendered most of them indifferent in regards to gender.
I love the repeated narrative of “I hate you, but I haven’t seen you in a really long time, and I missed hating you in person, so come here and let me hug you and tell you how beautiful you are.” There is something very poignant in the way that they treasure the familiar.
Consent is super important in sexual situations in her books, and in simple social situations, and in regards to the giving and receiving of blood.
It’s recognized that people who have been made vampires without their consent are victims of trauma, even if they are men.
And just the expression of emotions in her characters, the men, the women, mortal and immortal love, hate, scream, laugh, openly weep without shame…you don’t see much of that in modern literature without idiots labeling it as “over sentimental.”
I-want-my-IWTV 