>>95828
I don't see how it's any more or less pointless as a source of gratification than anything else. Morals are not real, as in they are not quantifiable and have no intrinsic bearing on objective reality. I do not believe that most of the relevant people are operating with a moral system wherein drawing graphic content is "evil" and that they are tempted into drawing it by the prospect of "attention".
>Doing things fur others instead of fur yourself also denies you any enrichment that can come from it.
None of this is quantifiable, but I do not believe that most NSFW artists desire fulfilment out of drawing art which they aren't finding in the NSFW content they choose to draw. Either way, our present system isn't very good fur the people that do.
>If you mainly draw NSFW that essentially locks you out of getting any real world recognition fur what you do, you could make an argument that certain tasteful SFW furry art could be shown to average people without them turning on you as a deviant (something like Disney robin hood, fur instance). But when you draw NSFW, you can't tie that to your real identity or face mass backlash. You can't go to your family and be proud of the furry tits, nor can you put it anywhere attached to your name. Letting something be known as being attached to your real identity is the ultimate in ego stroking, so by drawing cornography you're just settling fur this anonymous middle ground of ego inflation. But if you don't truly ENJOY doing any of this I don't see the purpose.
Yes, that is partially the problem that I was getting at. It was not always like this. This state of affairs is not inevitable. Normalfaggots have been out of the question fur a while (at least in TheWest), but this mentality has been furced into online art scenes as well. Which means that this also applies to online pseudonymous identities now.
>This as well, the only things ever remembered are just one in a million chance drawings/animations that ended up having some sort of viral cultural significance. And how are the people who made these looked upon? Many times it's because the content is shocking or strange in some way, so people look unfavorably to those who made these popular things.
On the other hand, if you make more individual, personal art, you may not get mass appeal but the people who do interact with your art certainly won't furget it. I know fur instance that most of the OCs on this site I will remember fur many years to come even if they stop being drawn and never become popular. And in my opinion the attention and praise that comes from a close circle of family, friends, or a small group such as this site is comparatively infinitely more valuable than the praise of the masses.
Again, drawing a totally arbitrary distinction between NSFW and SFW as hard corn fur Peruvian cryptids (WHICH ARTISTS LITERALLY CANNOT DRAW FULFILMENT FROM AS AN IMMUTABLE RULE OF NATURE... BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM MONEY AND ATTENTION) and as Personal, Individual, ONTAWLAWGICALLY SOHUMAN. The framing is all wrong.
Internet psychologising is zero-sum.
>>95837
I was talking mainly about depictions of sex (and extreme violence), not artistic nudity, but the foot soldiers of the anti-diddyblud coalition are retarded and don't see the difference anyway.
The people misconstruing artistic nudity as corn are not doing it only as an unconscious reaction to corn being everywhere (it's not.), they do it because they're stupid (90% of the time this is the case) or because they deliberately want to demarcate a piece/artist as being "NSFW" to attack it or to "claim" it.