I know you're probably upset with me for suggesting that it might not be wise to complain about others not crediting your work when you constantly delete things. I apologize for that. I didn't realize there were other contributing factors.

But now my curiosity is piqued. You are very talented, and even if I'm not interested in the particular fandom, I can still appreciate the work that you put into each drawing. I admit that I think it's a bit sad that you don't draw original work and only focus on fanart, but that's me being selfish to see what you'd come up with on your own.

So where does the passion come from? Is drawing, for you, merely a compulsion? Are fandom and drawing tied together? What would you draw if you didn't draw fanart?

Thank you for answering. -sweet2nothing

--

if i didn’t draw fanart, i wouldn’t draw anything. i would probably write. or teach earth science.

i like seeing what makes a character look like he does, is all. i like the feeling of putting marks on paper. it’s not really passion. it’s arbitrary.

but i think it’s sad that you wish i drew original work. that’s like saying to someone, “i don’t believe this is really you.”

people who draw original art get praised for their vision and creativity. you don’t have to be familiar with any of their characters, and you don’t have to be in any fandom to know what’s going on. no prior knowledge is required because you love what they do as artists.

but people who draw fanart only get a sidestep reaction. it’s either “i don’t know who this is, but you drew it very well” or “congratulations; you’ve made it look like him. now will you please grow up and stop being silly and draw us something we can actually like?”

you wouldn’t think to say these things to regular artists because regular art is about the artist herself. but fanart? well, that’s okay, because fanart is just a trick. it’s just wasted time.

i think you should stop sending me messages.

____________

I can actually heartily agree with Euclase here. Never saw it like this, but it's true. Not everyone craves to be an 'artist' who makes a living with original art. Maybe out of fear, or lack of support. For some it's a calling, a passion, and they pursue their dreams til the very end no matter what - and that's great! But for me it's a wonderful hobby, simple as that. This does not necessarily mean my art is worthless because I have a different mindset, a different approach... or does it?

What do you guys think? Do you view fanart as a waste of time and talent?

I am merely speculating, of course. Considering virðing/drengskapr (similar to lat. virtus) as the forever unachievable ideal/social system, its origin and power it undeniably had over Vikings, the punishment for cowards does not seem so out of place anymore. The opposite of honor is shame, and what shames a man more if not meeting the ideal - an ideal, that is the ultimate goal of each individual. If a man is less than what he is supposed to be - what is he, then? Something different, the opposite. He must, by default, thus be female (or an animal.) Now, I won't open that Pandora's box today of how women were viewed - mostly because Tacitus' record of that differs a little from later Viking society's standard - and skip right into the actual argument instead:

Perversity, "the man stained with abominable vices", is regarded as severe as cowardice. How do these two coincide? Taking into account that only the receiving partner in a homosexual encounter had to suffer the full penalty of his sordid (or should I say sorðinn? Hurhurhur) act while the active partner is undoubtedly the victor, homosexuality was first and foremost a demonstration of dominance.It was a practice used against enemies and competitors as means of establishing a position within society. There was nothing shameful in using a man like a woman, but certainly in being used, in submitting and becoming less than a man. Simply the accusation of being a coward and thus unmanly, was so utterly shameful, a discredit disrupting not only to the man's equilibrium (helgi), but his kin's, that the Icelandic and Norwegian laws demanded the death (or exile) of the accuser, if it was unfounded.

Due to Tacitus' accumulation, we can easily make the connection between the coward, the unmanly and the sexual deviant. They all denote the same kind of person. It is obvious, then, why they would all be doomed to the same fate as well. Unlike traitors and deserters, whose crime it were to nourish different morals and not a fundamental flaw in their nature. One could even assume, that hanging traitors up on trees for all to see, the meaning becomes "Don't do it", as opposed to the unmistakable message of "Don't be it" when it comes to the second group of offenders.

I am not sure whether anyone has compared Tacitus' account of Germanic life/costume etc with the much later age of the Vikings, but I am sure, I wasn't the first one to follow that train of thought.  Aaaaanyways. What's more important right now... OMG I CAN HAZ?