Clayface Is A Cautionary Tale For Artists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- Clayface ,in the show Harley Quinn, is a failed artist. This is not because he has no passion or love for his art but, because he does not care about what the audience wants. Clayface has no intention of giving people the type of performance that they want and instead wants them to love the performances that he loves doing.
#harleyquinn
#clayface
Great video! One thing I wanna add for Clayface's arc is that he resembles a lot of creatives in the sense that he wants to have his stuff immediately be great and achieve that overnight success when he'd probably be better off just finding his niche audience. Lots of art and media withstood the test of time just because they had a small but passionate cult following.
tbh, I've found his character work has actually gone down in quality compared to his time in Harley's Crew. I STILL love and remember Stephanie from Riddler's university! He had inspiration, a goal, and other 'actors' to play off of to help him probably make his best character! Some italian guy that has nothing to do with Pearl Harbour has nothing on our queen
As an artist myself I appreciate your input of a failed artist. Also makes me want to improve as an artist in many ways.
You need to send this to Disney, and to Hollywood in general.
I have a different complaint about artists that's completely unrelated.
One, they tend towards perfectionism. This is a vice for artists because it inevitably leads to self-sabotage and procrastination. Nothing kills an artist faster than self-consciously attempting to produce a magnum opus. I've seen it happen way too often.
Two, they tend to be pretentious. When an artist tries to tell you what art ought to be, they're not expressing an opinion about art, but expressing their motive for pursuing art. It's a self-report.
The paradox with art is that simply self-identifying as an artist makes you a worse artist. This fact will inevitably infuriate you.
You're not wrong, but to be fair, there are reviews that are meant to be helpful to the artist, providing them with something constructive, and there are reviews for an audience letting them know whether or not something is up their alley, and just shitting on an artist's work without offering advice is not helpful them. It doesn't offer any direction of where to go from there. When it comes to constructive critiques, be as harsh and honest as you want, but if that's ALL you're doing, there's really nothing helpful the artist can take away from that.
To add a random opinion, tbf, you can't really expect the audience to know the fix/solution to what they think is wrong each time. Though I get that it's more helpful if they can point out what is lacking, whether those feelings they can articulate well is a different matter. Lots of times imo (and not just talking about art but products in general), people know something is not good but don't actually know what makes it not good. I guess it's all just a balance between being polite about it and as honest as can be with what's up.
That said sometimes people just don't wanna spend too much time dwelling on trying to find what's up on something they don't feel is their biz and I get that. In those cases, I think just being honest and saying "there's something not right but I can't tell what" is fair too. Ideally, the artist should just take criticism not too personally and as one possible reflection for improvement and the audience should criticize in good faith when they feel the need to criticize.
@ you’re right about general audience members not always being able to articulate what is wrong with an artist’s work but a professional critic who is writing reviews in a news paper SHOULD be able to explain their reasoning for why they think it’s bad and could explain what could be done better. I think it’s entirely fair for Clayface to reach out and speak to the reviewer about what they wrote (granted it’s not okay for an artist to attack their critic the way he did, but I digress)