Function exists within art, yes. A painting's function is to be seen. It has a function. I agree. But what is artistic is what's done beyond that function. As I a said the "non-functional aspects". I did not say "art is an object that doesn't perform ANY function". Art is the aspects of an object that are not pertaining to its function. There is function within objects, but not in art. Art is not just an object.

you said non-function in your definition. its too specific and really has no need. you're overexplaining it. Non-function isn't a key factor to art. There are cathedrals and castles that the way they approach function is considered art. Its not worth arguing/discussing and you know it.

The core of art is to invoke feeling/thought. if you focus on that, it really doesn't matter what other things you add onto the definition.

So if you're a slave owner. And you have complete control of a slave. You're saying you wouldn't need a slave to do anything if you have control over him? An artist has a skill you need. You pay money, he illustrates in the same way that a painter puts paint on a brush in order to paint. They both want a picture, they both do what they need to do to make it happen.

I'm not going to address this poor analogy for obvious reasons.

In a way we could technically say that the client is the artist, and the illustrator is just a medium that the client uses to illustrate. We can call it artistic because the consumer can spend his money on whatever he wants, but the fact that he spends it on that illustration is in of itself making a statement.

You're right. in a way, you could technically say that....

i could technically say anything i want, just like you. Could you say that and be objectively accurate? No. Explanation below.

Yes, the client doesn't always specify every single little detail about a piece so the artist does have to invent some ideas and that is artistic because it extends past the clients demands into the artist's liberty of choice among a series of choices. Another way to look at art, it is a choice among many choices.

Depends on the artist and client. the artist still using his mind to create something that correlates with what the client had in mind. Its not the same as creating a mugshot from thought, or at least not always. And for a client its also a bonus for the artist to create something better than what he could've imagined.

The client relies on a commercial artist to help visualize what he can't. Or at least to put ideas into physical form. A client may only have vague ideas and still rely on the artist to execute them. At the end of the day, the client says yes or no if its not close to what the client envisioned, but like i said "depends on the artist and client". the client doesn't always get involved in the process of creating it.  They can ask for key aspects.

Point is you'll have to make compromises in order to grow in both illustrations and story-telling. you're not being slaved off if you choose to go into commercial illustrator or writer.

Storytelling's function is to be read or heard. Period. You can ascribe golden rules to story telling if you would like. The consumer can ascribe golden rules to stories he would purchase if he chooses. Commercial storytelling doesn't even follow your golden rules. SAO for instance. Where are Kirito's flaws at? But still a hugely successful product. Different people do have different standards. A lot of people don't pay attention to personality at all. Do I think it's better that characters have a personality? On a personal level, yes I do.

No. Not period. The act of being heard/read shares an intention again that correlates with illustration and that is still to invoke thought/feeling.

SAO is more concept than a story. The concept sells more than the story. Kirito as a person isn't important to SAO. Kirito more or less was suppose to function like a typical 1337 gamer, but comes across as the perfect love interest who everyone happens to like him and adore him. For SAO, the story is an excuse to move the concept forward. it doesn't care how good or how bad the story is (unfortunately).

Its important to not bring examples of sucessful bad writing as a way to avoid the golden rules. They're not intentionally giving a bad story, they just overlooked them because they focused on a different aspect. Pointing them out is just as important to improve.

I think the fact that you can't see a correlation between story-telling and illustration is very simple-minded. That's just my opinion. Maybe I think too much about everything.

No, you're just using our different views as a way to push an extreme (like when you compared commercial art to slaves)

At its core, they share similar goals to provoke thought/opinion/emotion into the one who reads/views it. But just as they are two different mediums, they have two different approaches and foundations. Illustrations can be a whole story packaged in a single canvas and the joy is to interpret the story from paint strokes, color choices, etc. This is where "a picture can say a 1000 words" expression comes in, because the viewer has to now fill in the blanks of whatever story they see in that picture.

Story-telling (and this includes comics and manga that use visuals as well) focus on the actual telling of the story. And to optimize it, the writer/teller focuses on the flow and pacing, the way characters are written, the amount of effort the writer does to immerse you into this fictional world or even non-fictional event. Story-telling is more of a process when you're sharing it. When you share illustrations, its usually in complete form. And even if you share the process of the painting its not the same as telling a completed story.

Here's an analogy to pusht he point across: when you tell an extensive joke, you have to make sure you're presenting the setup in an appealing way so that when you reach the punchline, your audience reach the intended feeling and laugh.

Like i said, story-telling is meant to be told to someone else other than yourself, so you have to take the audience into account. visual medium doesn't have to. it can be completely selfish. its not called illustration-sharing. just illustrations.

As of this discussion, perhaps I did in the past because I was prideful, but as of this discussion. I have not once excused any mistake I've made. I have done more to recognize how to fix them than you have. I explained why they happened. But I did not argue that they made the story better.

then we shouldn't be arguing about commercial art and how different you see story-telling.

In the past I've never actually taken it seriously when you'd say I don't put the audience first. Or I don't care about the audience.. That's mostly why you don't feel like you've ever gotten a good answer. I know what Katherine looks like. I know what she acts like and what wants. Why would I draw a picture of her? So that I'll know what I already know? Why would I write about her?

You don't even need to draw her. But just giving basic description of her, helps her easier to imagine. Otherwise, you're relying on the reader to make something up. And that's hard to do when you're just starting out the story at chapter 1. that means we have to imagine the character as we're reading the script. And you can't afford to do that with bad-writing habits.

Novels can get away with this at times by using the flow of the narration gloss over it. but when you share a script, fully intended to be drawn. its not a good idea to leave it out.

You could say the audience is the only reason she exists, but the reason why I never told you that Tara is supposed to make you feel like she's a victim who isn't blameless is the same reason why artists don't explain their art. I want you to have your own personal experience, or revelation, or emotion, from it. I want Tara to open up a discussion, not simply be a sentence.

we never got far into the story to ever reach any of these ideas (look at previous joke analogy). First few chapters were always flawed to the core, that we couldn't move forward.

The problem wasn't that you never told me Tara was supposed to make me feel like a victim who isn't blameless (which is more of a statement, than an intended feeling). The problem was that Tara was so indistinguishable from the start. Your goal is only to eventually reveal that shows that you didn't think of her like a real character.

And because of that, she was mildly annoying. Never really giving the reader a good idea of what kind of personality she has. Too many melodramatic scenes with no build up to them (once again, the joke analogy i said before). In the end, Tara was annoying. So why would the reader stay for the setup if the setup isn't interesting?

I could go back and tell you every single emotion you were meant to feel in FNO and Blade Regalia, and why all those years ago you were meant to feel that way, and I could even tell you why you didn't feel that way. I didn't want to tell you that, because I wanted you to have your own interpretation. Could it have helped us figure out solutions had I told you? Yes. Obviously it could have. I made a mistake. I've made many. I'm used to it.

Its good to analize the review. I always aim to focus on certain events where someone tells me "this scenes is soo annoying" and i go back and try to see why they feel the way they feel.