those of us rich enough to give money to Internet Strangers would like to ensure we're getting the most bang for our buck... well, i would be part of that demographic, but i'm not rich enough to give money to myself. but for the future, i would like to know which artists have Patreons that are withering on the vine and could do with an injection of much-needed dosh.

the one that comes to my mind first is Notkastar's, probably because the bloke never advertises it. $0 after a few months, to put it generously, is abysmal. we must remember that today's scrubby artist is tomorrow's visionary, and becoming their benefactors is a special privilege for a special type of patron.

special mention to artists who don't list how much they receive in donations each month. reminds me of those countries where you can walk into any government building and ask for a citizen's tax returns, and how convenient that would be for the rest of us.

What exactly do you consider 'broke'?

Ratte said:
What exactly do you consider 'broke'?

a Patreon with $0 after a few months, for instance.

Perhaps there is a reason nobody wants to pay them.

fewrahuxo said:
a Patreon with $0 after a few months, for instance.

OK, so, this is not how capitalism works.

How it does work is that you are doing stuff, people then like your stuff, then they will either pay or tip for the stuff, so that they can get more of the stuff.
Usually tipping means that you are doing everything for free, meaning you have to have above good stuff, so that people start to feel like you deserve the money (even if would've deserved it regardless, but that's outside the point). If you are going full business on things, then you are starting to build a brand and service which people have to pay to some degree to enjoy some or whole. Making everyone more invested in your stuff.

Because I am constantly supporting patreon pages, varying artists, websites and other things every month or two, paying out approximately 20-50€/month. But everything I pledge towards, I genuinely want the other end to receive that money. If I go out to pledge only because someone has 0 patrons with $0 income, that's just pitying, paying for stuff I may not like or want.

Also just because you get $0 on patreon, doesn't correlate for person being broke. Especially if it's setup simply as tip jar kind of thing, the changes are that's all extra for the artist what's in there. Usually I see people who are getting four digits amount of money from patreon has started to rely on it as regular income.

So yes, do support artists, personalities, websites and whatever you feel like trough patreon or other ways, but please do it for legit reasons, not just because of pity or because it contains porn (because some of you lot are still pledging for bloody pokehoes XXX, which is literally just taking your money to click "import free model from internet into unity engine" once a month).

Doomguy666 said:
Perhaps there is a reason nobody wants to pay them.

This, or they aren't marketing themselves in any kind of way to draw attention, which is their problem.

Mario69 said:
Also just because you get $0 on patreon, doesn't correlate for person being broke.

please understand i was not stating the sole source of income for these artists is Patreon, and the "brokeness" metric is only within the confines of the amount displayed on their Patreon page.

i happen to like Notkastar's work and would not give him anything if i did not feel he did not deserve it. same for anyone else.

Could be the fact they don't seem to have ANYTHING resembling a sample of what services they provide at the link there.. At least when I clicked the link anyways.

WaffleDragon said:
This, or they aren't marketing themselves in any kind of way to draw attention, which is their problem.

Popularity is correlated with an artist's quality, but not perfectly so. There are some really good artists who aren't very well known at all. There are other artists who aren't actually very good, who have a large following.

A lot of it has to do with advertising oneself.

Clawdragons said:
Popularity is correlated with an artist's quality, but not perfectly so. There are some really good artists who aren't very well known at all. There are other artists who aren't actually very good, who have a large following.

A lot of it has to do with advertising oneself.

I bet porn has a lot to do with it as well.

post #146291

Clawdragons said:
Popularity is correlated with an artist's quality, but not perfectly so. There are some really good artists who aren't very well known at all. There are other artists who aren't actually very good, who have a large following.

A lot of it has to do with advertising oneself.

Furries generally don't care as long as they can whack it to whatever someone churns out.

Ratte said:
Furries generally don't care as long as they can whack it to whatever someone churns out.

Yeah I didn't mention content because I figured that was a given. Even among porn artists. An excellent hyper scat artist is probably going to get less recognition than an average vanilla artist.

Clawdragons said:
Yeah I didn't mention content because I figured that was a given. Even among porn artists. An excellent hyper scat artist is probably going to get less recognition than an average vanilla artist.

Well, considering most people find hyper scat revolting...

Clawdragons said:
Yeah I didn't mention content because I figured that was a given. Even among porn artists. An excellent hyper scat artist is probably going to get less recognition than an average vanilla artist.

I wouldn't mind making enough to pay my bills from my Patreon funds but the content I create isn't interesting to about 98% of the fandom.

Ratte said:
I wouldn't mind making enough to pay my bills from my Patreon funds but the content I create isn't interesting to about 98% of the fandom.

you'd think that biology degree would earn you more respect from the anatomy hounds.

fewrahuxo said:
you'd think that biology degree would earn you more respect from the anatomy hounds.

I don't draw porn.

Ratte said:
I don't draw porn.

How dare you not draw pr0nz!

DelurC said:
How dare you not draw pr0nz!

asexuality doesn't make for good pornography.

fewrahuxo said:
those of us rich enough to give money to Internet Strangers would like to ensure we're getting the most bang for our buck...

Complements go a longer way. Just don't repeat what others say.

I'm pretty sure that a majority of artists have other means of income. And only use Patreon cash to purchase art supplies, pay for editing software, or whatever. It's a smart tactic. As you take money from your main paycheck to use for paying bills, utilities, and stacking up groceries. Then use the second one for play or other silly things. That way you don't spend all of the main paycheck up on silly stuff.

DelurC said:
How dare you not draw pr0nz!

Yeah I've gotten that a lot, but I don't see a point in pissing in the sea of piss when I could make things that are actually worth my time.

MrKranberryJam69 said:
Complements go a longer way. Just don't repeat what others say.

I'm pretty sure that a majority of artists have other means of income. And only use Patreon cash to purchase art supplies, pay for editing software, or whatever. It's a smart tactic. As you take money from your main paycheck to use for paying bills, utilities, and stacking up groceries. Then use the second one for play or other silly things. That way you don't spend all of the main paycheck up on silly stuff.

That still leaves out many.

Many, like myself, make their (likely meager) living from art. All of my income comes from Patreon and commission work, which means anything I pay for comes from the money made from my art.

Compliments don't pay bills.

Ratte said:
Yeah I've gotten that a lot, but I don't see a point in pissing in the sea of piss when I could make things that are actually worth my time.

Wow, so rude, doge not amazed.

DelurC said:
Wow, so rude, doge not amazed.

I'm sorry trite porn isn't as valuable as my time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I would rather use my time to make what my followers are actually here for and that I actually like to make, so I do exactly that. They seem happy and they're willing to spare a few to support the making of my canon work, which means a lot more to me.

Ratte said:
Compliments don't pay bills.

So if someone puts $15 or $20 into your patreon, you don't consider that a complement to your hard work? I'll remember this...

MrKranberryJam69 said:
So if someone puts $15 or $20 into your patreon, you don't consider that a complement to your hard work? I'll remember this...

If that's what you meant by 'compliments' then I apologize for misunderstanding.

Ratte said:
If that's what you meant by 'compliments' then I apologize for misunderstanding.

No, no, no. It's too late for that.

From what I learned through life anything can be a compliment. From glasses of water to $50. That's the problem people have with patreons. The way it is sometimes laid out, it's almost as if you're required to give this person your money. They even go as far to censor their art with Patreon icons. A pay to Seymour Butts.

I like how this thread turned into the complete opposite of what it was attempting to achieve.

People only care about what gets him hard enough to get their quick fix and go on about their day, and the lack of any attention to artists who actually do try and make something out for themselves exemplifies this fact. Nobody cares about subsistence or quality, to the point that even poorly drawn penises and half-assed sexual content gets more money thrown that them than artists who are often new or don't fit into the caricature of what an furry artist is supposed to be.

People keep saying that furries aren't all about the porn even though it's literally all you see sometimes and its getting quite sickening.

MrKranberryJam69 said:
No, no, no. It's too late for that.

From what I learned through life anything can be a compliment. From glasses of water to $50. That's the problem people have with patreons. The way it is sometimes laid out, it's almost as if you're required to give this person your money. They even go as far to censor their art with Patreon icons. A pay to Seymour Butts.

I'm sorry not everything is free? You're not exactly being forced to buy a picture of dicks in assholes either way. That's like spiting a vending machine for being covered in a pane and requiring money to buy what's inside. People choose to pay for Patreon tiers and commission work, they're not being forced.

Aanyi said:
I like how this thread turned into the complete opposite of what it was attempting to achieve.

People only care about what gets him hard enough to get their quick fix and go on about their day, and the lack of any attention to artists who actually do try and make something out for themselves exemplifies this fact. Nobody cares about subsistence or quality, to the point that even poorly drawn penises and half-assed sexual content gets more money thrown that them than artists who are often new or don't fit into the caricature of what an furry artist is supposed to be.

People keep saying that furries aren't all about the porn even though it's literally all you see sometimes and its getting quite sickening.

Same.

Aanyi said:
I like how this thread turned into the complete opposite of what it was attempting to achieve.

People only care about what gets him hard enough to get their quick fix and go on about their day, and the lack of any attention to artists who actually do try and make something out for themselves exemplifies this fact. Nobody cares about subsistence or quality, to the point that even poorly drawn penises and half-assed sexual content gets more money thrown that them than artists who are often new or don't fit into the caricature of what an furry artist is supposed to be.

People keep saying that furries aren't all about the porn even though it's literally all you see sometimes and its getting quite sickening.

post #1148635

At the end of the day, hustlers gonna hustle. Success is some combination of talent/quality, longevity, output/speed, marketing/outreach/personality, producing desirable content, and luck. As long as the artists aren't deceiving their customers or taking the money and producing nothing, I don't fault them for being hustlers.

Lance_Armstrong said:
At the end of the day, hustlers gonna hustle. Success is some combination of talent/quality, longevity, output/speed, marketing/outreach/personality, producing desirable content, and luck. As long as the artists aren't deceiving their customers or taking the money and producing nothing, I don't fault them for being hustlers.

Unless 'hustling' means catering to horny, entitled children and getting an audience with a very selective attention span, then yes, you're right.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Success is some combination of talent/quality, longevity, output/speed, marketing/outreach/personality, producing desirable content, and luck.

Pretty much that, yeah. Artists who doesn't have a lot of Patreons most likely go against some, or all of the categories you listed.

Aanyi said:
Unless 'hustling' means catering to horny, entitled children and getting an audience with a very selective attention span, then yes, you're right.

That might be true in many cases, but attacking the artists or even the audience for this seems like sour grapes. Exactly what is wrong with people paying for what they want and artists producing content that people want? It's just the reality. It's Economics 101. At least civilization has advanced enough so that some people can sit in a room and draw for a meager living instead of working the fields from sunrise to sunset (about 2% of the U.S. is directly employed in agriculture today compared to a lot more in the 1800s ).

Is it morally wrong for people to offer overwhelming monetary support to lewd art instead of creative SFW art? I think not.

"Horny" is usually true given the nature of the content, but "entitled children with a very selective attention span" is your opinion. No anecdotes, please.

There's nothing wrong with creating the art you want to create. If that means sacrificing potential popularity due to avoiding lewds and fetishes, power to you. But if it means drawing what the "horny, entitled children" want to see, that's fine as well.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Is it morally wrong for people to offer overwhelming monetary support to lewd art instead of creative SFW art? I think not.

monoculture leads to a vicious cycle where only those artists willing to fit into that culture are successful, further propagating that culture and reducing the value of alternate cultures. the monoculture in this case is furry porn, and the alternate culture is safe-for-work art.

by definition, it locks out choices, and taking away choices is not a particularly righteous thing to do. under these circumstances, it is morally wrong to support art that is produced in the majority, because it damages everyone who only enjoys viewing a minority culture.

Morality is subjective. I just want to see a variety of high quality art, and a little more balancing between safe art and porn wouldn't be such a bad idea.

If I had money, I'd support some of these artists with commissions. If I had talent, I'd make the art myself, and try to draw things no one else's drawing.

BlueDingo said:
Morality is subjective. I just want to see a variety of high quality art, and a little more balancing between safe art and porn wouldn't be such a bad idea.

If I had money, I'd support some of these artists with commissions. If I had talent, I'd make the art myself, and try to draw things no one else's drawing.

_{^{We still have no rosellas. ]}}

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind seeing more of a balance between adult art and clean art myself. I do enjoy the porn but I like the clean stuff as well.

Hiya guys, Just checked my "Search for myself in forums" to see if anyone
was able to find that one comic I mentioned (Still looking for it btw)

And came across this,
Could someone tell me what's going on ╹‿╹;)
(I didn't make anyone mad; did I? ◠‿◠;)

fewrahuxo said:
monoculture leads to a vicious cycle where only those artists willing to fit into that culture are successful, further propagating that culture and reducing the value of alternate cultures. the monoculture in this case is furry porn, and the alternate culture is safe-for-work art.

by definition, it locks out choices, and taking away choices is not a particularly righteous thing to do.

under these circumstances, it is morally wrong to support art that is produced in the majority, because it damages everyone who only enjoys viewing a minority culture.

"Morally wrong" ... "damages everyone who only enjoys viewing a minority culture"?
So you're saying that, not having your preferences for SFW furry art fulfilled on an ongoing basis damages you, and therefore it has moral weight?
Or if I made the argument stronger, not having your preference to make SFW furry art accommodated by the furry community damages you, and therefore it has moral weight?

Art isn't a trivial part of life, especially for artists, and monoculture is dangerous, but I don't see how you can make either of those arguments stand up.

I'm not sure what argument would have teeth, here. (for example 'Monoculture makes you ignorant and over-sensitive' is true AFAICS, but only has weight with somebody who already believes that ignorance and oversensitivity are serious dangers, and is willing to extend that concern to the domain of furry art. Not exactly a proposition that would garner broad interest.)