Why aren't mad artists as common as mad scientists?

Mad science taps into broad societal fears about technological change, whereas mad art taps into much more niche fears, if it's even connected to the root horror at all not merely a vessel for it.

I don't know what you're talking about, OP.

Mad Arts funding got cut in the latest budget.

Besides, Mad scientists work way harder. After you've endured Mad Undergrad, gotten your Mad PhD, and brownnosed your way through your Mad Postgrad you deserve the limelight over some fuck who's looked at a spiral for too long.

>whereas mad art taps into much more niche fears,
like having to look at hideous art?

or listen to

Have you seen how much artists make?

...

So, anyone else here like Afremov?

What is a mad artist going to do? Paint you to death?

...

>Mfw plot point in a few forms of fiction is the serial killer artist that uses his victims screams as inspiration and their blood as paint.

If anything they're MORE common. Mad scientists just get all the spotlight.

bacause even if in the climax of the story he admitted all of his murders and stuff, all that would happen is a critique fight between him and the lawful artist who's been pursuing him.

Yes, that or is also a mad scientist

it seems OP met some

First series with corwin, good stuff.
Second series blew donkeys.

A scientist already has an inherent danger to him because he can create dangerous things, so he's inherently more threatening.

Unless your mad artist has a crazy and interesting story like pic related then it's less of a 'mad artist' and more of a 'crazy man with a hobby'

Scientists don't make much, really.

Cause Mad Scientists Get Results

Because art seldom result in things tangible like fighting machines, submarines, energy sources etc.

There are some. But the mad scientist comes off as more relatable because they usually pursue physical goals.

007 stops Dr.no because he wants to become a huge overlord, gather power, etc...
As a spectator you can see why Dr.no does what he does, as power, money, success and strength in general is somethig the average person comes to meet more often in his life than stuff like "the concept of beauty ".

A mad artist is seen as just a random mad guy, who does some crazy psycho things for no reason.
At the end of his quest Dr.no will have a world to rule, while crazy artist has nothing.
Crazy artists are much more difficult to come and be characterized well. You either get edgelords like Jhin (? I think that's how it's called) Of league of legend (and don't get me wrong, I actually love that trope, it's a dirty sin of mines) or just average crazy guys with brushes.

Also it seems to me that mad scientists follow no moral rules, the taking over the top of the Machiavellian principles. Making them unpredictable and potentially threatening. How many times have you seen the evil scientist get rid of his own second in command, almost randomly, just because his fate into the cause was questioned.
A mad artist follows a strict moral and ethical law, to a sense: His perusing of what he believes is "beauty". From the guy who kills girls to make profumes, to the one who paints with guts, you know what he'll do. He'll paint a painting, make eau de damsel in distress.
Then again, my conjectures.
I could be wrongo bongo.

Because science is capable of progress and having practical applications. There is no progress in art, only changes in tastes.

Science is built on a relatively sound foundation of learning more about the observable universe through induction and experimentation, never accepting anything as infallible but always looking for a more accurate way to predict nature. Art is built on a contradiciton. On the one hand, art is supposed to communicate ideas and change the world through shaping people's culture. On the other hand, art is not supposed to be didactic and people are supposed to draw their own interpretations from it. Those two ideas are utterly at odds with each other.

I guess an evil artist might embrace that contradiction and become a passive-aggressive sort of serial killer or cult leader. "Do as I tell you, but don't do it because I told you. Do it because you really want to."

I wouldn't call Kid Rock an artist personally.

He's more of a showman. His works are only really supported by his persona and don't stand up well on their own.

Honestly I want Mayor David Grohl.

>Implying mad scientists exist
>Implying mad "science" isn't just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks
Most mad scientists in fiction don't have pages of equations proving that their idea will work and detailed illustrations of what they intend to build or do. Generally mad scientists just say fuck it, make an electrical generator that can shoot arcs of electricity and assume that using rubber handles will keep them from being electrocuted and that they will be able to shoot electricity instead of having it arc randomly all over the place.

Art inspires progress.

Look at Star Trek. Look at all the tech and thus social change it inspired. There is a direct link between all current social media to cellphones back to Star Trek.

That doesn't sound so bad, imagine how exhausted and hoarse he'd get at the end, no breaks no water.

>There is a direct link between all current social media to cellphones back to Star Trek.
So what you're saying is that we'd be better off if Star Trek hadn't been made?

Modern artists

You can't separate art from context. That's like saying a novel isn't art because you can't read it if you don't know the language it's in.

Garo has a few good mad artists. Granted they're also demons, but some of them make some interesting disturbing art work.

Yes, exactly.

Who really invented cell phones: some hack who thought we might have something like that one day, or all the people who put actual work and thought into making them real?

We would have had cell phones with or without Star Trek. Saying that one thing caused another just because it happened before it is a classic fallacy.

I like the idea of art that unsettles people's sanity. It'd be better as really disturbing paintings and sculptures than just murder. Or if you want to be straightforward, do it like in PsychoPass, edgy corpse displays that push people over the edge.

>a mad performance artist
Nailed it.

you realize the "people who made it happen with muh hard work" are the ones inspired by fictional portrayals and wanted to build something based on what they saw right?

I mean I know you're flailing around for any justification for your assumptions but come on senpai

>you realize the "people who made it happen with muh hard work" are the ones inspired by fictional portrayals and wanted to build something based on what they saw right?
Says who? We've had portable radio transmitters for a long time, you could just as easily say that cellphones are just a natural evolution of that.

Because they aren't threatening.

Oh no he might paint a picture of a squid with a Giger-esque penis. The whole world will surely be doomed.

>everything he paints becomes real

The question wasn't magic mad artist

Exactly. Real scientists begin by laying the theoretical groundwork for a technological advance. The real engineers and the speculators then begin working at about the same time. Because speculation involves no work, the speculators get done faster. That does not mean that they have any sort of causal relationship with the engineers.

Mad scientists are basically magical anyway, unless they're incapable of actually accomplishing the thing they're trying to create.

Mad scientists in fiction are more Frankenstein than Mengele.

>Mad scientists are basically magical anyway
This. The labcoat is more or less the modern version of a wizard's robe.

>screaming for 2.5 hours
Not gonna lie, that looks pretty interesting to me. I'd consider watching it if I had the time to kill and was caught up on my podcasts.

Artists aren't capable of producing anything with an actual, quantifiable, impact.

most fantasy scientists are polymaths, skilled in art, philosophy and engineering.

Dorian Grey is the closest you're getting in classic literature. And he is the subject not the painter.

In modern literature/film, serial killer who makes art from bodies is a popular trope.

>ywn have overworked magical lab-tech apprentices
>ywn see some bored grad student talk about how annoying it is to handle goblin sacrifices

Lovecraft had a bunch of mad artists.

You just have to look in the right places.

Mad scientists just have more style.
>ray guns
>robots
>Godzilla knockoffs
>mad laughter
>labcoats

I spent most of my childhood in a town full of artists and whenever I see a mad artist I just think "reminds me of bill"

They are. But what the fuck is he going to do, throw paint at me?

>t. STEM major
Kill yourself.

Isn't that engineering basically?

> tfw Slaaneshi

Yeah, mad artists are serial killers, mad scientists are genocidal.

He's talking about Hitler you nonce.

That's not a context, that's a medium of conveyance. Your analogue is more appropriate for a blind man trying to appreciate art.

Context is important only depending on the work itself. Animal Farm is pretty pointless without context, The Hobbit doesn't really need context to entertain. I don't believe, however, that an author counts as context.

>Why aren't mad artists as common as mad scientists?

Because people play for escapism and there are more than enough mad artists irl as it is.

Mad scientist use magic.
So compare them with magic artists.
Maybe he can paint future, or he terrorist who hear symphony in explosion, cacophony and screams, or he evil architect who build gate of hell, or sculpt flesh golem, or use hypnosis by playing his flute.

Eh, actually sounds interesting if its nonstop.

Take that fake madness outa here. That fucker just tried to build himself a name in history.

>user discovers engineering

He prolly knows that, but it's pretty well known Hitler was an artist and he's subverting the idea mad artist automatically means Hitler.

they're probably more common desu, it's just that they rarely get any recognition until after the shuffle of their mortal coil

>villain is an artist
>system is Delta green
>paints monsters, calamities, murders that come to life/true
>looks human from a distance, but closer inspection reveals clothes/features to be drawn/painted on
>these are all also paintings and the original "artist" looks like a cross between James Hong and a cockroach
I feel like the idea could use a spit shine, so mad artist thread caught my eye sorry

The problem is that generally art doesn't kill people, but a nuke, well.

What might be interesting is art that twists people's feelings. How about a guild of artists that do it? The twist is that they're rational, the contrary of your cliche mad artists (at least on surface).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickman's_Model

I feel like art and science tend to freak people out in slightly different ways, although that might be changing. Mad science, as in Frankenstein's monster, was scary because it was like a corruption of nature, an act against God that shouldn't exist in the first place: it's a bit like evil magic, or summoning a demon, just with newer and less religious trappings (still religious, though). These days, I think more people are frightened by science because of the threat of obsolescence, i.e., robots are going to replace/murder me.

Art doesn't really frighten people as much as science does. People who make art, who are thought of as "artists," aren't perceived in the same way that scientists have at all.

That doesn't mean there isn't some meat to this idea, though: there have been times when people have been seriously disturbed by art. When youtube.com/watch?v=02tkp6eeh40 was played for the first time in public, supposedly, there were riots in the streets because of the tritones were so unsettling. Something like that. Anyway, I think that tapping that sentiment is still possible. Instead of an angle that has to do with "menace" (Science monster going to destroy nature, kill me) or "obsolesence" (science robot going to steal my job, kill me), I'd go with "enchantment" in the most sinister sense possible. Think of a villainous fey who bewitches people and steals them away and... changes them. Think of a danse macabre led by a madman on a fiddle, whose tunes make everyone who hear them dance uncontrollably. Science has a rational heart that can turn into a menacing, evil coldness: Art, by contrast, has irrational passions that can turn into uncaring expression and (arguably) hedonism. If you can't do anything that's properly evil with that without resorting to a pale reflection of "mad science," you're not trying hard enough.

There should be heretical Spurdos, if I wasn't a poorfag phone-poster I'd make some.

I used one in WFRP. He was a Slaaneshi sybarite serial killer. What he'd do was kidnap someone murder them, and paint the moment of their death in their own bodily fluids in a frantic drug-induced haze, trying to capture the moment.

Because force multiplier.
A mad scientist can make a nuke/bioweapon that threatens millions. A single person that is extremely dangerous and powerful. (Mad Wizards too)
A mad artist can kill far less people. Even a mutated beast of an artist can threaten far less than a 1000 (unless your power levels are bigger, but then it becomes very setting specific).
unless hitler

great example, plus iirc the yellow sign of hastur appears to solitary artists sometimes, drawing them under his power

ITT: Salty sadbois who don't get art.

Mah nigga.

I'd love to have a bard be the BBEG of a campaign, just politically manipulating the world to bring about some kind of society that only worships the loudest and most vehement.

basically this, it isnt as cool/menacing. Thats basically it.

A PAINTING OF THE SOOOOOUL

A mad scientist builds Doomsday Devices and holds the planet hostage, culminating in him being killed a by a super spy, his island fortress exploding and a death toll in the thousands.
A mad artist kills a several people and gets shot by an FBI agent.
The scientist is more spectacular.

A mad artist is a lower-scale threat. Their madness must generally be more well-studied and compelling for them to work as well as a more cliched mad scientist

Some madness is expected from Artists, typically they must forsake all or nearly all sympathy to go truly "mad". Slightly unhinged sympathetic artists are just "eccentric" Mad scientists on the other hand can be full vile, but they can more easily be run as sympathetic characters, since to be mad and a scientist doesn't require doubling down on mad.

The mad scientist, as a villain, plays into fairly deep fears. Science, as it's popularly understood, is an attempt to reach into the unknown, and the fear of the unknown is very old and deep. By contrast, the fear that the villainous Mad Artist taps into is more of the "Stranger danger" fear -- the idea that your fellow humans don't necessarily mean the best for you. This can be done really well, but doesn't have quite the immediate grip as Mad Science and is shared with more other human archetypes, such as garden variety serial killers, secret cannibals, gestapo, child molesters, and so on. True, the Mad Artist has a leg up since creative people are regarded as weird, but compared to a mad scientist? They're at a starting fear disadvantage.

Lastly, most content-makers are creative types and probably find it easier to demonize a scientist than a fellow creative type.

Because nobody wants to be Hitler.

an entire board of this website disagrees

...

how would a Medusa do a self-portrait if they can't look at mirrors?

we are among you.

Someone who's bought into the "art has intrinsic value" meme...

hey! another sadboi

He wants to bring his vision to life. And you look like a wonderful canvas.

>Paintings that have naunced effects on the viewer, driving them to insanity months later
>digital art that pushes people to replicate and spread it
>the guy can straight up make Weeping Angels

This kinda reminds me of one of Stephen King's short stories about a guy who could write "letters" (more like glyphs) that kill people, if he knew enough about them. In "Everything's Eventual", I think.

>Being an artist
>Not being mad
user please

Because the philistines in this city wont approve my merry-go-round made with actual skinless horses