Enthusiasm can be a productive force for good, but our culture has rapidly become a fan-based landscape that the rest of us are merely living in

Of that hardly-a-hundred schoolkids, office boys and junior librarians, the great majority were actively involved in their pursuit, publishing or contributing to a variety of – for the most part – poorly duplicated fanzines, or else going on to work professionally in the field, such as Kevin O’Neill, Steve Moore, Steve Parkhouse or Jim Baikie, all of whom were downstairs at the Waverley hotel that weekend, keen to elevate the medium that they loved, rather than passively complain about whichever title or creator had particularly let them down that month. Of course, this was the 1960s and the same amateur energy seemed to be everywhere, spawning an underground press, Arts Lab publications and a messy, marvellous array of poetry or music fanzines that were the material fabric of that era’s counterculture; flimsy pamphlets as important and innovative today as they were then, although considerably more expensive, trust me.

Soon thereafter, caught up in the rush of adolescent life, I drifted out of touch with comic books and their attendant fandom, only returning eight years later when I was commencing work as a professional in that fondly remembered field, to find it greatly altered. Bigger, more commercial, and although there were still interesting fanzines and some fine, committed people, I detected the beginnings of a tendency to fetishise a work’s creator rather than simply appreciate the work itself, as if artists and writers were themselves part of the costumed entertainment. Never having sought a pop celebrity relationship with readers, I withdrew by stages from the social side of comics, acquiring my standing as a furious, unfathomable hermit in the process. And when I looked back, after an internet and some few decades, fandom was a very different animal.

An older animal for one thing, with a median age in its late 40s, fed, presumably, by a nostalgia that its energetic predecessor was too young to suffer from. And while the vulgar comic story was originally proffered solely to the working classes, soaring retail prices had precluded any audience save the more affluent; had gentrified a previously bustling and lively cultural slum neighbourhood. This boost in fandom’s age and status possibly explains its current sense of privilege, its tendency to carp and cavil rather than contribute or create. I speak only of comics fandom here, but have gained the impression that this reflexive belligerence – most usually from middle-aged white male conservatives – is now a part of many fan communities. My 14-year-old grandson tells me older Pokémon aficionados can display the same febrile disgruntlement. Is this a case of those unwilling to outgrow childhood enthusiasms, possibly because these anchor them to happier and less complex times, who now feel they should be sole arbiters of their pursuit?

Never imagined fandom being described as being gentrified but here we are.

There are, of course, entirely benign fandoms, networks of cooperative individuals who quite like the same thing, can chat with others sharing the same pastime and, importantly, provide support for one another in difficult times. These healthy subcultures, however, are less likely to impact on society in the same way that the more strident and presumptuous fandoms have managed. Unnervingly rapidly, our culture has become a fan-based landscape that the rest of us are merely living in. Our entertainments may be cancelled prematurely through an adverse fan reaction, and we may endure largely misogynist crusades such as Gamergate or Comicsgate from those who think “gate” means “conspiracy”, and that Nixon’s disgrace was predicated on a plot involving water, but this is hardly the full extent to which fan attitudes have toxified the world surrounding us, most obviously in our politics.

  • Shaleesh [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I partially disagree. There are creative works that are being made today that are just as thoughtful, inspiring, aesthetically pleasing and engaging as the ones made in yesteryears. Our view of the art of the past is warped by the tendency for the good to be preserved and passed on while the bad is cast aside. However, in the past 30 years or so media corporations have gotten marketability down to a science in the name of creating safe investments, not stimulating art. That approach creates highly sucessful, super visible, and entirely bland slop like the Marvel movies and Call of Dutys of the world. Its not that its all worse, its just that the great stuff is lower profile. In my opinion the advent of high-bandwidth internet has partially counteracted this by making global distribution acessable to the everyman.

    • peppersky [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      I didn’t say that there were no worthwhile creative works being made today. There certainly are, but they are few and far removed and there are more and more bricks being put in your way when you want to get to them. Algorithms make actual discoveries impossible. There are fantastic movies on Netflix from all around the world that the service will never ever recommend you, no matter how long you scroll through their site. Global distribution through the internet is a scam, if everything is just a click away you are only in competition with every other artist on the world, all the while peoples attention spans are being sold to the lowest bidder. Back when you had videostores or recordstores you had actual human beings who you could ask for recommendations, you could walk through the aisles and just pick out whatever looked interesting.

      And even besides that, the economic realities of being an artist today are just going to make it more difficult to make good art. Why were there so many great artists in new york in the 70s and 80s? Because the rent was low. You won’t make great art if you have to work 60 hours a week just to pay your rent. Gentrification kills the scene.

      Considering basically everything in the world has been going downhill over the last decades as late stage capitalism takes over every part of our western societies, it is a complete fallacy to think that art could somehow be immune from that.

      • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Global distribution through the internet is a scam, if everything is just a click away you are only in competition with every other artist on the world,

        And even besides that, the economic realities of being an artist today are just going to make it more difficult to make good art. Why were there so many great artists in new york in the 70s and 80s? Because the rent was low. You won’t make great art if you have to work 60 hours a week just to pay your rent. Gentrification kills the scene.

        Considering basically everything in the world has been going downhill over the last decades as late stage capitalism takes over every part of our western societies, it is a complete fallacy to think that art could somehow be immune from that.

        Preach! It is an awful gig being an artist, all the creative projects I want to do are always “on the back burner” because I have to focus on stuff that sells first and foremost, which means I need to go for reliable and safe options, instead of experimentation with something new. It’s quite stifling, and the only real “out” is to make a project that is successful enough to bankroll a more experimental creative project that doesn’t need to be financially successful.