News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by deng on Saturday July 16, 2022 @04:54AM (#32116300)
> It did in the sense that kids these days don’t worry about selling out. It’s a generational change.

I mean, I can understand that establishing a "brand" is more important nowadays, but it must still be important to carefully curate it and not mindlessly promoting anything that earns you money. When Tony Hawk promoted crypto.com, I immediately regretted any kind of respect I ever had for that man. Does the younger generation really not care at all?

Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by coldtea on Saturday July 16, 2022 @07:13AM (#32116953)
>When Tony Hawk promoted crypto.com, I immediately regretted any kind of respect I ever had for that man. Does the younger generation really not care at all?

The younger generation follows and idolizes social media stars and "influencers" that sell out 24/7, in the cheapest, corniest (late night tv informercial style) ways possible...

Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by lapinot on Saturday July 16, 2022 @08:56AM (#32117562)
Yeah.. hem tiktok youtube facebook hem instagram snapchat twitch.. This whole thing being discussed in the thread is not some abstract destiny, it's just that the social media lobby, ie the mass advertisement and marketing lobby is crushing everything on it's path since 20 years because they are now tech giants and have data crunching tech. It's not "the spirit of the time" or some other naturalization or whatever, there are active forces behind this (and i absolutely don't mean this in the "evil hidden goverment" way, these forces are fuzzy are multiple, but still, it's a school of thought that recognizes itself).
Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by ghaff on Saturday July 16, 2022 @08:25AM (#32117351)
It's complicated but it feels like there is a huge aspect of personal branding/influencer/side hustle/etc. culture that's about making money any way you can and that to disdain it is to be "privileged."
Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by ConceptJunkie on Monday July 18, 2022 @11:13AM (#32139301)
> social media stars and "influencers"

i.e., people who are based entirely on the "selling out" part without having created something to sell out in the first place.

Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by adastra22 on Saturday July 16, 2022 @05:09AM (#32116364)
That’s not what the article is talking about. When I was growing up (mid 90’s) and earlier, ANY commercial success was selling out. Playing your guitar at the local cafe? Awesome. Signing your first album deal? You’re selling out, man.

It was a weird remembrance of the punk movement, and maybe counterculture before it, where basically any capitalist interaction was working with The Man and considered selling out.

Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by usrusr on Saturday July 16, 2022 @08:41AM (#32117448)
Your cafe/album part makes it sound like a clear binary, but it was an enormous gradient spanning the entirety of pop culture and just about everybody seemed to rely on it for orientation. From the most pretentius "we would never" that was all top obviously more about getting an offer than about the claimed selling out, all the way to stadium rockers struggling to retain whatever the term "authenticity" meant to them or their audience.

The 90ies started with R.E.M. freshly signed on Warner instead of I.R.S. and ended with an absurd DAG of labels and sublabels and sub-sub-sub-labels (again, with the whole range from true grassroots independence to being part of one of the global media giants ten indirections deep), shortly before that entire monstrosity was put down by the onslaught of Napster, iTMS and so on.

Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by TheSpiceIsLife on Saturday July 16, 2022 @05:13AM (#32116379)
I grew up around then, and definitely noticed the only people who weren't selling out where those who didn't have the opportunity to.
Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by toto444 on Saturday July 16, 2022 @05:24AM (#32116416)
That's probably true but people were reminded that they were losing agency on their creation to businessmen. The creation was losing a bit of its soul. Nowadays most 'creations' are designed to make money from the very beginning.

Very few people still create something for the sake of creating something great. If you are aware of some of them please share !

Re:Bill Watterson’s refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) by dotancohen on Saturday July 16, 2022 @05:41AM (#32116495)
Not "art" per se, but SpaceX has a little cottage industry of followers who make terrific content, and successfully monetize it, while staying true to the ideals of producing the content for enthusiasts' sake. Marcus House, Tim Dodd, etc. Of course they cover other content too, and had established products before pivoting heavily towards SpaceX, but they certainly keep the sense of community.