>>107158138
I really don't know if you're trying to bait me, so I'll answer:
>reduce artists to the level of "product"
That's exactly what artists are, at least the overwhelming majority of them. The same goes for roughly all professions out there. What's the mascot's objective? To better sell Firefox's image, right? If so, then the labor involved in creating the image was simply exchanged for money. There's nothing transcendental about the image. Just a literal image to improve the appearance of a product. You place artists in an almost divine position, to the point that even an "artist" scribbling on paper has some transcendental value that nobody can explain. It's hilarious. Look at the definition of art:
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
Now explain to me how to appreciate the image of that fox. Where is the aesthetic value? And the emotional value? I don't see any. I only see a decoration made to sell a PRODUCT. There's nothing special about it.
>You must be a very sad and upset person
I'm not a sad person, at all. In fact, I think I'm happier than I deserve. God has been extremely generous to me this past decade. I've reached places I never imagined, I got married and had a child. The only thing that makes me sad right now is not having the financial means to have about 10 children, but it's nothing special, I'm happy having just one child, although I'm planning a second one for next year.
But you must really be unhappy, and that's the only explanation for you being so hurt in an anonymous forum at this hour on a Sunday. I hope you overcome your traumas and manage to be happy someday.