![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sg_fignewton is hosting a Gen Fic Day this coming Sunday - fics, commentfics, recs – anything, so long as it's gen. Hug a gen fan! Next week I am going to see the Tutankhamun exhibition, woohoo! I can't wait. Canopic jars here I come.
And I'm in a thinky mood lately, and at the moment it's about advertising vs. information and discussion of interesting and relevant topics. What do you consider to be advertising, and where do you draw a line? If you were on an art history comm, say, and someone started talking about the paintings they did, copies of classic Impressionist paintings - would you think that was relevant to the comm? Or, how about if the artist did those paintings for a company that commercially produced artworks for sale - would you be more interested in hearing about their thoughts on Cézanne? Would you think the art history comm should allow the artist to describe their art, or post pictures of a commerically-for-sale collection of their and their colleagues' paintings and suggest that people might want to acquire them? Would you expect the artist to choose a post such as "Please talk about the work you produce here" as a place to post their comment, or would you think it was acceptable in any post that mentioned, say, Impressionist art?
Just curious.
p.s. This is NOT about anyone on my flist! Or, for that matter, anyone on my friends' flists.
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Designed by chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
If the were talking about copying famous art works and what they learned by copying them then I would be all for it. Artists have been copying other's works for ages in order to learn techniques for ages. We did that in both my drawing and painting classes. You really do learn a lot that you may not have considered if hadn't tried to replicate it. That could be an interesting discussion for an art history comm.
On the other hand if they're trying to sell their reproductions, I would say that probably doesn't have a place on a discussion comm.
I also wouldn't think an Art History comm wouldn't be the place to share your own art work. Surely there are comms that are all about sharing artists' work amongst it's members. I don't think it would be a huge deal if someone posted a link to their Esty shop just as an FYI with the pic of their art work in such a art sharing comm.
It does sort of annoy me when the same person constantly advertises on a comm. In several of the kimono comms I belong to someone keeps posting ads with with nothing but a big pic of the store's logo on about a weekly basis. It ends up in about 3 or 4 comms and as far as I can tell they mostly have Korean stuff and very few kimono goods at all. I get so sick of seeing it.
So that's my long convoluted opinion. : )
It does sort of annoy me when the same person constantly advertises on a comm.
Absolutely. I think it's bad manners. Like you say, talking about what you've learnt from copying a painting is an old, established tradition, and completely fascinating - and would be suitable for an art history comm discussion on, say, "How have you interpreted artwork from history?"
But if the post is voting for the comm's top-ten favourite Cezanne paintings, you don't ignore the vote, and comment, "Oh, I love 'Still life with apples and oranges', it had such an impact on Cubism - I did a reproduction of it in this collection of art for sale, plus there's a lovely interpretation of Picasso in there, and some nice Whistlers." And post a picture of the collection. Particularly if it's the first thing you've posted to the comm, and previously you've not been involved in the discussions about art history.
Mentioning something once, in a post asking for people's work - that might be acceptable. Although I think that would depend on whether the post was asking for professional work that's for sale, or amateur work that's available for anyone to see and enjoy. I think there's a big difference.
That's my long, convoluted reply. *g*