I'm really happy with how this turned out.

I ask this question after reflecting on the differences between animation and music. They're very different creative spaces but somehow draw the same criticism? A rambling thread: https://twitter.com/KankatoRYM/status/1325505205715132417

I was reading about Hayao Miyazaki's distaste for most television animation in the 70s and 80s and comparing it to the creative landscape of modern music. One enormous difference that strikes me is the amount of capital necessary to make tv vs music.

Cartoons have always been a time consuming medium. Even short works of a few seconds can take an afternoon to complete. Since animated works are essentially built in slow motion they require a lot of diligent work from everyone involved.

If you compare this to the rigorous schedule of weekly broadcasts and the amount of man-hours necessary to create animation it's obvious that cost is animation's greatest limitation.

This is why I imagine so many shows are considered derivative or "trope-esque". Someone needs to fund these projects and I imagine they're interested in a return on investment, not much else. For an example, take a look at A1's catalog.

In this environment of clones and chasing trends I can see why someone would come up with "90% of art is rubbish". It must be hard to be creative with such heavy limitations on you.

However, if you cross the bridge into the world of music there are people who have similar 90% arguments for a completely different environment.

Unlike the budgeted world of cartoons, musical works are much less expensive to produce and distribute. Entire genres can be created on inexpensive software and laptops by one person.

The real challenge with music is finding an audience. While indie artists can upload their works to Bandcamp and essentially play a level field with other significant works, promotion and distribution is a much greater challenge.

In addition, because music is a fast and dense medium it's very easy for movements like Vaporwave or Hip Hop to be "flooded" by artists still cutting their teeth who aren't as interesting as more established acts. As such, music is more heavily reliant on curation than cartoons.

This is why "90% of art is rubbish" can hold similar meanings but different contexts between mediums. It seems cartoons are restricted by investors whereas music is restricted by discoverability. Two very different creative spaces arriving at the same conclusion.

I find it heartwarming that y'all reject the premise. It's nice to see that inherently pretentious attitude get largely rejected by my following, creative restrictions withstanding.

Anyways I just woke up so I'm making eggs

Stand by your taste