Tell it to Herostratus, who originated damnatio memoriae and despite that is still remembered.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money," said Dr. Johnson.
The guy who set fire to the temple of Artemis for attention? The guy who the phrase "herostratic fame" is named after?
It doesn't hurt to have a few people to keep your head out of your ass either, to have some sort of dissenting opinion to remind you that even your own shit stinks. If you're unable to filter useful criticism from the sort that will only harm you, that's on you. The sort of people that chalk-up all detractors as "pedants and second-guessers" are the sort of people who get their own articles on this site.
It's not controversial, it's just everyone else telling you that you're wrong. Because you're wrong.
"Creating art for other people to enjoy is good, actually" is an opinion, "Art is worthless if you don't share it and only psychopaths do that" is full-on pedal-to-the-metal retardation.
Well its true. Every artist has works in progress they never finish or projects they just don't like enough to share. But if you're consistently creating art for you and you alone, never publishing a bit of it, there's really no two ways around it. That's psychotic. It doesn't make you some tragic avant-garde, even people like Francisco Goya and Mervyn Peake had impressive published bodies of work before they became crazy hermits.
I admire the adamant determination you show in your refusal to stop being wrong but, eh, you're wrong. And reading too much into it, judging by the rest of your post.
If anyone else had beautiful roses growing in their yard, they'd pot them first and maybe think of selling them later if there's an incentive for it. If you saw those roses, dollar signs would appear in yours eyes and you'd start thinking of ways you can make a quick buck of them immediately.
You seem to be conflating critique with creation for others. No one has said that critique isn't valuable, don't ever show anyone your work and become Henry Darger, the point is that if you're creating things simply because of other people with no desire to express a theory of world in your work, you might as well design consumer goods because that's all you're doing.
I'm not conflating anything. I'm talking about two separate things at once, which both relate to having an audience. If you care to re-read you'll notice I'm replying to someone else who's talking about criticism specifically. This site has a nifty feature that lets you follow quote chains for context.
... because it matters to me?
Heinlein started writing to pay off debts incurred after a failed run for political office. So it's not like 'writing to make a buck' is somehow bad.
And some of us can’t help but be embarrassed at writing/drawing erotica involving characters from 80s/90s/2000s children’s cartoons.
*shrug* Perhaps.
I said embarrassed, not guilty.
gigachad
No, he's interpreting you correctly, the shit you're saying sounds profoundly retarded to everyone. You're making insanely extreme claims, getting wrapped up in your own autistic definitions of things, and giving rebuttals to arguments that people clearly aren't making instead of responding to what they're actually saying. It's pretty ironic actually - maybe you should consider your audience and look at the feedback they're giving you.
I am going to hang that in my living room.
If even you don't like it why would anyone else?