It's recently come to my attention that some people really, really detest fanart. In some cases, I have to agree: things like the Super Smash Brothers: Brawl screenshots that keep on getting posted should not constitute fanart, as there was no actually effort put into the creation of that and the angles were set up by someone else.

However, on other things, I must draw the line, as saying fanart is not good soley based on the fact that it's not using original characters is pure and utter bullshit (for lack of a better term to use). I think one thing people need to remember that it's not a use of 'character' that defines art, but rather, how it's presented that defines it.

Now, for this example, I'm going to show this fanart by one : . Now, it's Sonic the Hedgehog, so that might lend itself to some flaming due to the distinctive nature of that series. However, this I believe constitutes art. Sure, the character isn't original, but what matters in this case is the situation. If you think otherwise, I want you to tell me about one situation in any Sonic the Hedgehog game where Sonic is on his feet, looking down at a flower morosely. Or, actually, since I've played pretty much every one of Sonic's post Sonic Adventure endeavors, then I'll tell you how many: none. The Sonic franchise as a whole is generally too light-hearted for that kind of morose presentation. So therefore, this is still a work of art; it may not have original characters, but it's still a situation.

Actually, saying it's not art because it does not use an original character is sort of undermining all of the portraits of Greek Mythological or Biblical figures/situations that spring up all over the place in art history. Let's take a few examples of work that would not be considered art if these pieces weren't considered absolutely legendary in today's world:

The Birth of Venus by Botticelli. Ah, Venus, Goddess of Love. That one Roman mythological figure that always seems to be neglected when we talk about love. And yet, mentions of Venus appear all over the place in Renaissance works, ranging from Shakespeare sonnets to things like this. Botticelli is no different here, and even if it has no bearing on the Greek/Roman pantheon (I don't remember if they ever talk about how Venus was born), it's still an original way of presenting things.

The Sistine Chapel. Theoretically, this could be debunked because it's a commission, but if my life of being a compostion student says anything, a commission isn't a way of stifling creativity but rather of cultivating it. Besides, Michelangelo was saying 'look, I don't want it to be about the twelve apostles, I want it to be about Creation'. And draw great things about the creation was exactly what Michealangelo did.

Essentially, that all takes the form of 'here is a set of pre-existing characters/situations, now let's make them into art'. Exactly the same principle as fan art when you think about it.

Oh, but there might still be those of you who don't believe me. "Oh, that may be true, but what about those people that draw something from a situation that isn't derived from words?" That's true, cosidering that both of the examples posted are based on works of written or oral text; there is still a variety of ways that it can be portrayed. "So then, what about the depictions of things that have been seen, and why are they still art?"

Again, it's all in the presentation. If the presentation is exactly the same, than that's plagiarism unless it's one of those gift-shop posters that you can buy at the museums. However, if you portray it differently, it's still a work of art.

For this example, I'll again turn to art history to prove my point; most specifically, some tidbits about Diego Velázquez' painting Las Meninas that you may or may not know about.

Now, Las Meninas is one of the most talked about Spanish paintings ever made, alongside works like Guernica and what-not. You'd think this would be the least likely candidate to show up in an argument for fan-art, I would think. And you're right; apart from the fact that it puts the daughters of King Philip the IV into a situation, it's not really prime material for a fanart debate given my above examples.

It's what happens when you throw Pablo Picasso into the debate when it becomes related to fanart. Las Meninas is its own great work, and obviously many painters have admired it. Picasso took his admiration to the next step, though; he drew studies that use the exact same poses and puts them in a cubist perspective.

Here's the kicker; Picasso did this not once, not twice, not four times, not ten times, hell, not even twenty times! Picasso drew a grand total of fifty eight different versions of Las Meninas in a cubist style. Fifty eight! And all of them are astoundingly original; for your convenience, I'll post a few links to some of them, but if you want the full experience I recommend you go to the Museo del Prado in Spain, where Picasso's variations on Las Meninas are shown in a hallway that looks into the room in which the original Las Meninas. So here are some of Picasso's variations:
[link]
[link]
[link]

In comparison with the original Las Meninas:
[link]

Now, are any of Picasso's variatons art? Of course they are! The presentation is original, and the fact that he did 58 variations lends itself to requiring a certain amount of originality certainly says something about things.

Now, with all of these examples shown of art that derives from other sources, can you really say that fan art is not art? I don't need to begin to talk about how presentation matters the most in art; presentation is what can make a work of art either incredible and able to stand the test of time, or just make it yet another piece of crap that's going to be forgotten as soon as the artist dies. The same applies to whether fanart is valid or not; as long as the presentation of artwork is original, then it must be art.

And let's not forget for a second that if these guys were payed to draw Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comics, then it's no longer fan art, now, is it?