The Trouble with Licensing- Part 2

A\N:It's been a while since I last updated. There were a myriad of reasons for this, but mostly it was laziness. I apologize to my readers, and I promise to be more regular from now on.

So we've covered a few of the problems associated with licensing in art. But we still haven't arrived at the crux of the issue: Is it worth it?

Personally, I feel that it all comes down to the creator, and how much they're willing to let go of their creations. Some claim they suffer something akin to post-partum depression upon allowing licensing, while others staunchly swear by it and its advantages in the modern byte-for-your-thought world. In other ways, it also boils down to how we as a society allow artists to profit from their creations.

For some reason, the introduction of money instantly dilutes the product, and we immediately criticise the artist for "selling out". But is it really selling out? Haven't we all sold out, just by joining a certain corporation or endorsing a certain product? What makes artists better (or alternatively, worse) than us that they simply aren't offered the option to make money without someone calling them out on their credibility? At the end of the day, artists are just human beings, and human beings need to eat. Since when has someone being allowed to make a fair profit for their work become the work of the devil?

Perhaps we wish for artists to be the anti-establishment voices of dissent that we never were. Considering the amount of analysis and thought that goes into the discussion of the creation, it's only natural that we pour our own souls into the creation, and we'd prefer not to tarnish pure imagination with something as practical as money. Maybe we’re all clinging on to that inner artist of ours, just waiting to be let out. We know that the artist in us would never compromise on their principles, no sir. So we project our dreams and wishes onto our favourite creators, and with the inevitable disappointment comes the even more inevitable backlash.

Oh Snoopy. What would Woodstock say?

Perhaps it is not our right to question our favourite creators on their decisions. So, to all you Star Wars, Garfield, heck, even Peanuts fans, let go. Relax. Don't try to control the ride. After all, it was never yours to begin with.

But seriously, watch this show. It's awesome.

So let's get back to that question of ours: Is it worth it? To tell you the truth, I think it probably is. After all, there's no reason for you to not have control over the licensing itself, and in the case of creations like Garfield, the adapted versions may surpass the original. Sure, you may be occasionally unhappy, but I'd rather cry in a Porsche than fake a smile in a Prius. Probably. I haven't done either, so I can't really say for sure. As to any questions on whether I've sold my soul or not, I haven't. This blog is one hundred percent by me, and I will not allow it to be influenced by anybody, ever. I've managed to keep it this free by powering up my brain through the invigorating deliciousness of Kellogg's Cornflakes! This out of the blue endorsement is completely authentic, because eating Kellogg's products and praising them doesn't come from the allure of money. It comes from your heart.

Seriously, buy them. You won't regret it.

The Trouble with Licensing- Part 1

Licensing has long been any creative cretin's bread and butter. With the power of licensing, they ensure for themselves a comfortable existence as they attempt to broaden the human consciousness. But this comfort comes with a dark side, for they essentially sell their soul to a corporation in order to enjoy a life of luxury. For some artists, this is a fate worse than death. A laboured love of creation is not something that can be handed over in an instant, and is equivalent to giving up a child.

Of course, for others, the art is merely a means to an end. Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, for example, admitted that the sole reason the orange tabby ever came about was so that he could create a merchandising empire. But the fact is that for the vast majority of artists, licensing can be seen as the kiss of death for their creations. So, the question is, is licensing a necessary evil?

One of the most common arguments against licensing is that it dilutes the product. This is true to an extent, but it's not necessary that the changes are always adverse in nature. For example, I've always preferred the wry humour of the Garfield TV show to the comics themselves (the movie, on the other hand...well, some things are better left un-watched). Let's take another example to see how this works. On the opposite end of the spectrum of Jim Davis is another comic book artist, Bill Watterson. Mr. Watterson has steadfastly refused to partake in licensing of any kind, and there has been no official merchandise of Calvin and Hobbes ever released. But the key word there is official. Nearly everybody has seen the "pissing Calvin" images. Everybody who has actually read the comics knows that this is an inaccurate depiction of Calvin (for one thing, there is a severe lack of dinosaurs), but the images are ridiculously popular. Due to ill-defined trademarks, Calvin is one of the most bootlegged creations of all time. Sure, Bill might have felt that licensing might have lead to poor animated TV shows and the like (not to mention the potential for actual Hobbes stuffed tigers), but it has led to unofficial proliferation of his beloved characters all the same. Frankly, I'd prefer the real deal.

Licensing also comes with responsibilities. Like it or not, the people who have put money into your product expect to see something accessible, something to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You give up a lot of freedom when you start licensing. This is where a character like Garfield comes in handy. Everybody hates Mondays, and (nearly) everybody loves lasagna. But do you think the strip of Calvin blowing up his school would have been made it into syndication if kids were also tuning into Calvin's misadventures on Saturday morning? It'd be highly unlikely to say the least. Perhaps that was Bill Watterson is trying to hang onto. His artistic integrity.

So we've tackled some of the cons (and pros) of licensing. But the key question, "Is it worth it?", remains to be answered. Stay tuned...