Intro and Artisitc/Literary Merit?
First let me say hi, now that a few people have joined. I know a couple of you but not all of you and I'm thrilled to see that others are interested in a place for postive fandom discussion.
For those of you that don't know me, I'm Shannon. I run several websites and write fic in both BTVS and HP fandoms.
Anyway, as I think most people know the most recent deletions at LJ have mentioned Artistic Merit and I've seen a lot of views on that. What I've noticed is that I seem to define artistic merit differnetly than many of the people I've seen commenting.
Most of what I've seen are comments saying the drawings were badly rendered. That's how merit is being defined by many people. I don't think that's what was said at all. Artistic Merit to me isn't the quality of the artwork itself. I've seen work by both artists it's very well done in the techical aspects. I was...way back when I first went to college in 1991...an art major. I see the merit question as being more about what is taken a way from seeing these drawings. The story behind it, sort of.
Artistic and Literary merit to me are about the story the work tells. That's why art is being hit harder. It's not about the art being good or bad, it's because there isn't a story behind it. You can read a fic with teen-agers having sex with an adult and see the story, what led to that scene, why this 17 year old made a choice on their own, coercerin wasn't involved; it's a story. With a drawing you don't have that story. You just see the surface, the 17 year old having sex with a 40 year old. If the art is connected to a longer story the results may be different.
Understand, I am not in anyway saying LJ handled it well. They didn't. I'm not even saying those drawings were necessarily child-porn. What I'm questioning is the defiition of Merit.
I'd love to hear other opinions on this, how you all define merit. I know at least one of you does artwork so you must have opinions on this.