One would think that artists exist in an exalted state, treated with gloved hands and fawning deference. And…well…yes…artists do have a certain status that seems to set them apart and garner different treatment. Call it fandom, starstruck, stanning, or what have you, being a famous artist does generate a different kind of regard. One might also think then that artists are fully in control, the ones holding the reins of power with full autonomy. And, again, to a point that’s true. Artists can establish boundaries, policies, and practices that best suit their realities. These things are true.
From the inside though, brass tacks treatment does look a bit different. Because here’s the thing: Those boundaries are actually reactions to smeared lines in the sand, there because an event triggered them. And there’s always a price to pay for fame and success, isn’t there? You become an instant target, a magnet for negativity and it can cut really close, especially so in our community. Why? Well, we’re a relatively small and closely knit geekdom, aren’t we? We feel more like a village or big family rather than some anonymous, bloated interest group and that’s fantastic! It’s truly one of our best attributes. However, it can also generate a kind of casual familiarity that allows some people to test boundaries and make assumptions that would have otherwise given them pause. What’s more, what sets artists apart can actually set them apart too much, changing them into something so far removed from the common experience that some people give themselves license to treat them in problematic ways. Put all this together then and our artists can end up in this weird no man’s land of being super familiar but also set apart, of being embraced but also not entirely accepted as “one of the common folk,” of being admired but regarded with suspicion, of being celebrated in one breath and then backhanded the next, and ultimately, of being held to a different standard than most anyone else. Is such the nature of stardom? Does it have to be?
Because what prompted this discussion was a Facebook post by a peer about how artists seem to be treated with a dumbfounding double-standard and who was understandably confused and frustrated by this. Because yes — it is confusing and frustrating, and a detriment to our entire community. Haven’t we lived with this white elephant long enough? If we’re going to move forwards, shouldn’t we reconcile with this big white thing lounging in our communal living room? And this isn’t only an important issue for our community, it’s important for artists to understand to navigate the tricky waters out there. Because take it from an old lightning rod who’s been dragged through it all, understanding even some of it can really lend a perspective that keeps us productive even when we want to scream. Honestly, I’ve been potshot so many times, I’ve lost count. I’ve even been told to outright leave all this because I was ruining things. I actually got hate mail. Someone even made a hate website. And this is just my experience. I cannot speak for other artists who have their own varied tales to tell, but trust that many do have them — oh boy, do they.
So, yeah, truth time here: It’s not all wine and roses out there for a popular artist. So often new artists yearn for the recognition established artists enjoy, and who wouldn’t? Because — yes — fame feels good. It feels great to be recognized for your efforts, skills, sacrifices, and dedication. Job well done! And fame is easy access to new connections and opens up new opportunities. Fame definitely has its perks! Yet there's a trickier side to fame that can blindside us if we aren’t prepared. Because when you reach that hallowed status — sure — there are the lovely accolades lauded your way but now in equal measure, there are also plenty of gleaming knives pointed in your direction. An ugly, noisy, and persistent comments section is now waiting for you, so brace yourself. (I recommend Pickled Art and The Critic In The Creative Space for more insight on this.) This pesky side of fame is nothing new though — just look at how celebrities are treated or read the comments section of just about any creative or influencer. Yikes. So should our niche be any different? Maybe? Can’t we do better?
Because curiously, our genre has a little spin on this effect perhaps due to the its unique structure. For one, we're such a niche interest, so insular and tight. For another, our social media is extremely active, making darn near everything within ear shot. Put that together and we're all at one giant party in one giant room. Add to this our collector's drive which puts acquisition on centerstage and then we also have competition as the engine of our activity. Then on top of that, we have artists and companies controlling access to the objects of our desire, creating an atmosphere of urgency and exclusion. We have a unique little community, don't we? To my mind, the positives in all this are absolutely extraordinary, generating a kind of magic unlike anywhere else. Truly, our niche has an energy, a vibration that's always dynamic and so full of potential! Yet the tricky bits do warrant some thought because also generated is an underlying love-hate regard some people have for our artists, especially the highly successful ones. For example, we may hear the term “BNA," or “Big Name Artist,” as a means to describe our more popular artists. However, BNA is actually a derogatory, weaponized term coined years ago as a sideways insult specifically meant to bash popular artists. This is why we often hear malcontents use it when they launch into their diatribes. (So consider using “established artist” or something similar instead.) In some cases, this negative sentiment is so strong, it morphs into a deep-seated resentment of established artists, and simply for existing. I’ve encountered these people — they’re out there — and so it is with just enough in our community to remain a problem. Now this hostility used to be overt. Just right up in your face, even as coordinated attacks on specific artists. Some people truly had no qualms about putting an artist “in their place.” Why? Well, artists weren’t supposed to get too big for their britches, were they? Nope. They were supposed to stay small. No matter how successful they became, they were always supposed to maintain a small profile, small expectations, small boundaries, small rights, small entitlements, small power, and, of course, small prices. It actually seemed as though these malcontents were entitled to what they wanted and so artists were obligated to provide it despite any disadvantage to themselves. The moment an artist started to pushback then — wow — the backlash was really quite impressive, and all to chop off this growing sense of worth off at the knees.
Now today, that sentiment is still out there but prowls around using different disguises and different tactics. In particular, it’s taken to playing the victim, and doing it so well, it gains sympathy from those who would otherwise disagree. It’s also playing the “but what about” game, trying to water down the arguments and garner support. Gaslighting is also an aggressively used strategy now, made all the worse by all the “likes” these posts get. It’s all the same accusation though: BNAs stomp on the “little guy,” stacking the deck in their favor, are priced too high, and are gatekeeping accessibility to their work, all boiling down to resentments about access, popularity, fame, and the perception of power.
Now all this said, don’t get me wrong — the vast majority of folks in our community are amazing! They help to keep our genre sane, don’t they? That’s to say then, artists — you aren’t standing alone! Truly, most folks out there get it! The only hitch is that most folks aren’t so vocal as those malcontents so, as a result, it sure seems like the community is stacked against its creative base. However, I believe this is a self-filtering, skewed view. Really, I’ve found that most people instinctively respect creative boundaries and realities. So just remember this: For every malcontent giving you a headache, there are many others who would never dream of taking such liberties because they get it, only we don’t “see” them as much. Just trust that they’re there and hold them close to heart.
Because golly — that veil of discontent is toxic, isn’t it? So where does it come from? Well, think about what any collectible niche is based on — acquisition. Now there’s absolutely nothing wrong with an acquisition streak! Hey, it’s what makes us collectors, right? Truly, such a thing isn’t inherently bad and has actually helped our niche bloom! And it makes us happy, it’s fun, it’s a thrill, and even more, it stitches us together as a community. It can be such a positive force! But we should realize it does have a dark side, one that manifests the moment there’s a threat to that acquisition. We’ve all seen it, haven’t we? We call it "drama," but it’s actually a very real fear in a collector’s gut — fear of exclusion and lost access, a diehard collector’s nightmare. Yet while most of us can just shake it off with humor and perspective, with some this fear can sour into problematic reactions often directed at the companies or artists they interpret as gatekeeping. And it’s a sentiment not so latent as we’ve seen with all those who “like” these complaints on social media.
Now what the heck is all that about? Good question. It’s tricky to ferret out the good and the bad with acquisitiveness in a collector community when so much of it is situational, too. Really, each one of us has our own threshold so what may seem over the line to you may seem perfectly fine to someone else. So what’s the baseline? Perhaps a way to frame it then is to deduce what’s turning that acquisitiveness sour when things go sideways. For most of us, we can keep our collecting habits in good balance but even more importantly, we can keep them aligned with our sense of fair play and community. But with just enough folks out there to remain a problem, this dynamic hits the fan and the repercussions splatter all of us in some way. They can even compel a company or artist to change the nature of their sales which can negatively impact everyone. Ugh. So from what I can tell, there are eight overarching themes in this though I’m sure you can tease out more:
- The Us vs Them mechanism. Perhaps the oldest “us vs them” dynamic in our genre exists between the community and its artists. When an artist achieves a certain level of success, a shift seems to happen and they become an “Other.” No longer part of the “everyone club,” they get placed in this separate category and so their words begin to have disproportional weight, their actions under disproportional scrutiny, and their motivations under disproportional judgment. Literally everything they say and do comes under a different lens and applied to a different set of standards. They just cease to be “one of the people.” The more successful then, the stronger this effect and the more “Other” they become. As such, their humanity can get stripped away and so they and their work can be thoughtlessly talked about openly with all manner of unkind sentiments, even within earshot, as though their personhood just didn’t exist. Perhaps because it’s a famous artist and not a “little guy” hobbyist, this behavior is perceived as acceptable? I've even heard some folks say that “BNAs are just asking for it.” In this way, artists can become a dehumanized target and a magnet for negativity. Some call it the price of fame. I call it objectification. So what’s an outcome? Well, established artists can get a disproportional amount of negativity and blame. For instance, we have the common accusations of they set the bar too high, they operate in a way that penalizes the little guy, they’re too big for their britches, they have too many boundaries and policies, they’re too uptight about their intellectual property (IP), or they’re arrogant, narcissistic, and self-important with giant egos, or any number of unpleasant things. (And anyone who comes to an artist's defense is immediately smeared as a sycophant lackey rather than someone who has something important to say.) In short, because artists control access to what these people want — because they have to, need to, want to, are entitled to — they become the easy bad guy, especially when their objectification gives some even more license. This, in turn, amplifies the “Other” state and so it goes, even to the point where artists may no longer even be perceived as human beings but as obstacles to acquisition.
- The gamepiece mechanism. It’s only through the work of artists — one way or another — that the game of showing model horses can be played. Once we frame it that way, it’s easy to see how some attitudes can become so dicey when they cannot get the game pieces they want to play the game, maybe even win it. Because if this was truly only about collecting, we wouldn’t be showing, would we? Ours is a fascinating, quirky brew with all the baggage of arting mashed with all the issues of gaming nestled within a framework of competition plopped into a infrastructure of collecting — that’s quite a powder keg when you think about it, especially when you add in the inevitable gatekeeping. What’s more, when the game needs artists to participate, especially a limited number of particularly popular artists, that kind of bottlenecked dependence can birth a lingering resentment in just enough players to be a problem. Indeed, some are all too happy to level those artists they believe are too big for the good of the game, i.e. for the good of their own collecting interests. Maybe they believe this will bully or guilt the artist into equalizing access for them or maybe send an intimidating message? Who knows. But then, all artists are supposed to be nice all the time, right? Even when it’s disadvantageous to them. Nice about access, nice about prices, nice about IP theft, nice about it all without any boundaries that would limit access. So the second an artist (or company) starts to establish boundaries, watch the complaints roll in from those who still believe that creatives (and companies) should always be compliant to everyone’s terms, particularly their own. Some go so far as to assert that artists owe the community for their success and so should pretzel themselves accommodating near every demand. And — yes — an artist does owe the community. Indeed, without their collectors, they don’t have a livelihood, do they? But by the same token, without artists, collectors would have nothing for their shelves. It’s a symbiotic relationship that requires balance, synergy, and mutual respect. So this isn’t saying it’s ok for artists to be jerks about things, of course not. It’s to say that boundaries are usually created out of necessity, as a response rather than some arbitrary notion. Indeed, protections that preserve their interests actually encourage them to churn out more of the stuff we all love which only results in a lot more great loot for everyone!
- The “outsider vs popular crowd” mechanism. We all know this experience ourselves I’m sure on some level. Really, I wager many of us are outsiders in some way already in “real life.” But to some people in this community, the perceived exalted status of many artists turns them into the “popular crowd," something they’re already conditioned to fear or resent. Subsequently, in their minds, they become the “outsider” all over again which understandably hurts because it’s now within their beloved interest. It’s really like insult to injury and being so triggered, some lash out. But no one likes to feel intimidated, rejected, dismissed, left behind, or excluded so most who fall into this trap are really just hurting.
- The access-to-work mechanism. People like to get in on the ground floor with a new artist because in these early days, access and pricing is often more attainable. Really, everyone likes a lot of bang for their buck, right? But as the artist rises to fame, boundaries and prices have to go up and so somehow someone just gets irate about that. They may even feel betrayed, now regarding that artist as exclusionary, arrogant, elitist, narcissistic, or ungrateful. Likewise, these new boundaries then become the handy new excuse for problematic behavior because these folks still want what they want, right? So here’s where we can see plagiarism and IP theft because, feeling so entitled to the work they can’t get, they’ll just make or commission a copy. Now if the artist rightfully pushes back, watch the backlash happen and how gaslit, victim-blamed, and villianized that artist then becomes. They’re no longer “nice,” see. There’s something wrong with them — there has to be, right? Why else would they be so unreasonable, overbearing, uppity, egotistical, and mean? Because — dang it — artists are gatekeeping again but people are entitled to whatever they want — goshdarnit — and so can do whatever they want to get it. That really does seem to be the case with just enough attitudes out there it seems. See, when that artist pushes back, some folks perceive that as a power imbalance not in their favor. So to force a power balance back to their advantage, they attack the artist as a means to intimidate, silence, and bully, all the while expertly playing the victim to gain sympathy. And they don’t care about the artist’s realities, in fact, they disdain them, interpreting them instead as an injustice. So again this is where we see a lot of IP theft along with more gas-lighting, victim blaming, and other tactical manipulations weaponized to maintain a power balance that purposely disadvantages artistic rights.
- The “mirror” mechanism. “Comparison is the death of joy” said Mark Twain, and he was absolutely right. Yet it’s human nature to compare ourselves with others even though that’s one heckuva trap. So some folks see all this good stuff happening with a “chosen few” popular artists, and boy, does that envy, acrimony, and sense of injustice build up, compelling some to act out. Even other artists do this if they’re resentful enough of the standing, the attention, and the successes of their colleagues. I’ve seen it plenty of times in my career…and please stop. These are our fellows, our peers, our colleagues — be happy for them, support them, and raise them up! And artists work very hard for their successes and they should be allowed to wallow in all the kudos and recognition they earn without it being tarnished by a reactionary outburst. Hey, the world is hard enough, right? Let’s lift each other up!
- The "inspired by" rationalization. Some art communities exist where members blatantly rip off artists and are pretty proud of themselves for doing it. They even make money with illegal merch yet the management of these sites can be such a self-protecting, conflict-of-interest web, that trying to stop it is like trying to douse the sun. Indeed, some there even believe that IP rights are inherently immoral, double-downing to paint themselves as the virtuous little guy righteously standing up to the powerful artist like some twisted David and Goliath. Some even go so far as to claim successful artists should be grateful because it’s a form of flattery in the much overused, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” But no…just no. That's not how flattery works. The full quote by Oscar Wilde is, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” That last part matters. Yet some folks in our own community apparently seem to buy into this mentality and so we see the common defense of “standing up for the little guy,” or that somehow the victimized artist owes them or the community anyway, or that they were simply “inspired by” without acknowledging the excruciatingly fine line between inspiration and plagiarism — a line they’ve clearly crossed. But truth time here: What they’re really defending is a hellbent entitlement to have what they want while throwing everything under the bus to get it. It’s a predatory acquisitiveness with someone’s IP. Alarmingly, too, they also tend to be very good at generating a lot of support by playing the victim and gaslighting the artist into the villain — just look a how many “likes” these posts garner. Indeed, we would be well-served to recognize that we have our own predators among us and they devour the IP and the agency of our artists to get what they want.
- The conflicted view of art in general. Modern society just seems to have a dicey regard for artists. On one hand, the ability to create art can be seen as a magical, even divine, gift, an act of profound mystery, a superpower. Therefore, artists are just somehow an inherently different animal touched by some greater power. Yet at the same time, there’s also the underlying view that artists are to be viewed with suspicion and alarm being unbalanced, unstable, or somehow more extreme. The baggage just goes on and on. Indeed, that near-universal parental lament when their child announces they want to be an artist is no joke. The art world can also seem like an exclusive, disdainful club, and the fact that most modern art confounds the typical person to the point of ridicule doesn’t help. Wrap it all up then and artists today are more typically tolerated than they are understood, more fetishized and objectified than regarded as complete human beings with their own Truths. No longer part of the “everyday,” the artist has now been separated into a different category of experience, one that’s enigmatic, romanticized, even alien. Some call it the “artistic mystique.” Is that warranted? Hard to say. Is it unfair? Well, insofar as how artists, their efforts, and their works get treated as a result I suppose.
- Haters are just gonna hate. Have you noticed that when someone is out there living their passion, in come the haters? And the more someone is successfully living their passion, the more haters glomb on? The truth is that with some people, someone’s success, happiness, and skillz just makes them really uncomfortable and the typical and easiest way for that discomfort to manifest is through negativity. Just read the comments section of many successful creatives, for instance. Wow. When our sparkle is interpreted to shine a little brighter, negativity from someone isn't far behind. Plus, some people just derive their life force from negativity — for whatever reason, it's their default. And if social media has proven anything, it's that this dynamic is a universal constant no one can escape."Everyone is a critic,” yes, and I wager at least some of it is this mechanism. So do the thing that brings you joy without hesitation or apology. Really, if you're going to be targeted for something, might as well be for something you love doing, yes?
Put all this together then and we get this toxic poison that's been seeping into our watering hole for decades. Indeed, there's a reason why some successful artists live behind proverbial walls or otherwise keep things at arm’s length to some degree. They’re not cliquish, arrogant, haughty, snooty, narcissistic, aloof, or elitist — they’re protecting themselves from that just-big-enough contingent in our community that can be a real problem. But if that wasn’t enough, there’s also the overt cruelty this genre can pile onto its artists with careless, unthoughtful, or vicious words about their work inspired by a brutal “compare and bash” mentality. As Taylor Swift sings though...
And we see you over there on the internet,
Comparing all the girls who are killing it,
But we figured you out,
We all know now, we all got crowns,
You need to calm down.
Because clearly, just enough folks out there aren’t so cool and we've seen the damage they can do. Yet we must remain happy and creative all the same, right? Perhaps it's time to really sit down and reconcile with all this? Indeed, no OF or custom or resin or ceramic or bust or medallion or tack or prop or doll or regalia or photograph or set up or podcast or YouTube channel would exist without creativity. Now this doesn’t mean to exalt creatives like gods. Good gravy — no! It just means this: Don’t objectify them. Give them back their humanity. Respect their Truths and boundaries, work to protect their creative rights, show them courtesy and thoughtfulness, be understanding of their very different realities, try to see things from their perspective, and please, be kind when they stumble because they will. Please always remember that they’re human beings with all their fragilities, vulnerabilities, hopes, laughs, dreams, triumphs, fears, anxieties, joys, flailing, and mistakes…just like you. Like I’m this insecure, awkward, and fragile soul who has bouts of self-doubt and self-hate, too. I’m not an abstract — I’m a real human being and my life is as immediate and vivid as yours, as it is with everyone. Truly, we never stopped being the little guy! We didn’t change — it was the community’s baggage-filled perception of us that changed!
And evolution in all this isn’t just good for the community’s social fabric, it’s great for us all as collectors. Because you know what’s driven the explosion of innovation these last few years? Pockets of reality in which much of this doesn’t apply, where artists have the freedom, support, and ability to make a decent living, to practice business and creativity as it works for them, to explore their creativity without being torn apart, to work without worry of IP theft or exploitation, to benefit from those who protect their vibe, and all else that comes with an environment diametrically opposed to this white elephant. So you know what? If we want more of that, we have a choice to make. Do we protect our arts and re-humanize our artists to reap the benefits of that cultivation or do we continue to throw creatives under the bus of self-interest? Is it okay to put what we want before the rights and humanity of those who create it? I urge some hard thinking about what kind of landscape we want 5-10-20 years down the line because now — right now — can be the first step towards a more inclusive future that embraces the agency and empowerment of all of us.
“We reveal most about ourselves when we speak about others.”
~ Kamand Kojouri
