ART: This weblog post is probably the most bizarre argument I've read in quite a while. The thing is all over the map as far as reasoning (I count 3 unrelated reasons for his beliefs) but basically the author's main idea (I think) is that artists do not "control" their work by default because they let other people look at it so they shouldn't try to control it at all.

...I think it's a good and chastening thing for a creator to be reminded that he/she does not have anything like a god's power over his/her creations--or, at the very least, if the creator is a god, he/she is more like a member of a (really overpopulated) pantheon. Zeus, for example, can try to make things come out his way, but he's always got to worry about Hera or Poseidon's interference. There ain't no Yahwehs at the typewriter! A lot of "indie creators" don't seem to realize that...

I'm not even really sure how to argue with that because it's just such bullshit. Artists need to be told, should be made to understand, that they have no control over their work? What kind of adult wants to 'chasten' other adults for their artistic decisions? It seems like his problem with 'indie creators' is that they stubbornly refuse to sell their creations to the highest bidder so they need to be taught a lesson. I won't even go into the legal reasons for controlling your work because Mr. Fiore doesn't, although I think the legal/financial reasons are as strong as the artistic reasons. He doesn't even really go into the artistic reasons, besides trying to say that art "by definition, [is] embedded within culture. That's what makes it art!!! And once you plug into culture, you are no longer in control." I know I only went to college for computer science, not critical theory or art theory but this whole essay, this sentence included, is full of gibberish to me. I have a hard time faulting someone for using $5 words where a $1 word will do but this is just ridiculous.

It's obvious that once someone reads your book or looks at your painting, the image is in their head and you can't hope to control what they do with it. This is not, however, a reason to give up on controlling your work. In referencing Tony Isabella and Black Lightning Fiore makes it clear that he's talking about real control, the physical say-so about what happens to your characters in the real world, not in someone's head. For background, Tony Isabella created the character of Black Lightning as a work-for-hire creation for DC Comics and he's now mad about what he sees as DC's shabby treatment of the character. Fiore says that Isabella shouldn't be arguing about the treatment of his creation because as soon as he created it and "plugged it into culture" he lost control. I don't think Isabella should be complaining either, but it's because he willing sold the rights to DC as a work-for-hire. If he had retained control over his work he wouldn't be in this mess because presumably he wouldn't have done something with the character he didn't like, no matter how much David Fiore wants to believe he "[doesn't] know what the hell they're going to do next." This is a completely different argument and one that's a little too personal for my tastes. Writers let their characters run free as much as they choose to and it has absolutely nothing to do with controlling your work.

I'm not sure this makes much sense but the post in question is really all over the place and hard to read. He makes a basic point that I wanted to address though. I don't think he'll read this or respond but I would love to discuss this if only he would get past his love of College Smart Guy wording.