I once read an essay about the idea of, if you have a successful artistic creation, should you exploit it financially, for example by selling rights for someone else to find new income streams (Bill Waterson famously never did.) The essay argued that even if you are primarily motivated by art and not money, you should for the reason that money being the motivating factor for so many activities in our society, doing so is the only way to keep your creation relevant in society, which would then mean that your creation would keep being exposed to new people, as opposed to live in the minds of ever older people and die with them. I would like to to find the essay and reread it, but I could never find it. It kind of rang true.
I believe most artists care more about the message of their art than about its spread. And if you ask them to choose between "500 people that get it" and "50000 people who don't", the fact that the second number is bigger is not necessarily a better deal.
(Obviously there are considerations for "I need to pay rent", but that's a different issue)
Anecdotally let's look at one data point. Spider-Man is in comparison garbage, but it's everywhere to this day. Why, because some company calculated they could milk it. C&H in comparison is much better but virtually unknown for anyone under the age of 20. It's dying.
However, I believe that the essay I read specifically mentioned C&H as an example, which CTRL-F indicates your pdf doesn't. (On the other hand, it's also possible that I originally did read your pdf and in my mind used C&H as an example, and am now mis-remembering it haven been presented as example).
Regardless, I'll read your pdf, thank you!
"Prophets grow stronger when they die." --Villeneuve expressing his headcanon through Irulan, with B Herbert's approval.
My architect friends are not so in love with Jane Jacobs' <<Systems of Survival>> -- no mention of beauty, of quality!
Besides the Calvinist ancestor-worship, we might also consider the option of keeping the conversations flowing through non-survival. Heh. That's a lot of vanity, Bill.. but then, JJ could also have allotted Beauty* to the Guardians, especially since she handed the Merchants Truth. We left Heroism on the table..
*From wikipedia: "Let them eat Ostentation!"
Spider-Man, for all its merchandising and marketing, doesn't have people chasing down old content in dying formats. It is supported by new content in modern formats.
> Calvin and Hobbes was extremely mainstream. It only stopped being so because the creator stopped creating content for it.
I think that's exactly the point. It stopped being mainstream. Spiderman continues to be mainstream because the original author passed on the rights and now it will live for longer than the original author. Calvin and Hobbes will continue to shrivel in how well known it is.
(He famously “came back” for a gag, but he hasn’t “sold out” and is apparently happy doing what he does, set for life.)
https://stephanpastis.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/ever-wished-t...