money for art = dilution?

[Phlog]

I'm of the opinion that art is an expression. An attempt to bridge the gap between people and communicate that which common language falls short of.

I believe that the moment that an artist makes decisions on the basis of what will provide the greatest renumeration, they desecrate their work. They convey one thing: a desire for money. They damage any real value their work previously had.

An example is the music industry. Music is a beautiful thing but anyone who has tried to be a musician will know that it is a soul crushing experience. Endless repetition, pr and thoughts of target audience detract from the artists true beauty.

This is why I never perform for money. I think even involving money turns it into manufacture.

I feel the same about sport, that it should be entirely amateur but that's a different story.


Discuss.

 

[MortalWombat]

Michelangelo was originally commissioned to paint the Twelve Apostles on the triangular pendentives that supported the ceiling, and cover the central part of the ceiling with ornament.[37] Michelangelo persuaded Pope Julius to give him a free hand and proposed a different and more complex scheme, representing the Creation, the Fall of Man, the Promise of Salvation through the prophets, and the genealogy of Christ.

But then I guess you get a bit more negotiating power when you're Michelangelo.

 

[7437]

I believe that the moment that an artist makes decisions on the basis of what will provide the greatest renumeration,

There is a difference between getting paid, and making whatever art makes the most money. Artists obviously need to eat, so they need money. people of any craft become better with more practice, and professional artists have the most available time to perfect their craft.

Also, selling out isnt a bad thing. Look what it did for the Beatles.

 

[SoulBrotherNo1]

I think there is a fine line. For example a movie director might make a more commercial project, so that on that money he can afford to make the more personal project later.

But of course if someone just cares about the money, and trying to please to public, and sacrifices his original artistic vision, there is a good chance it will be trash.

 

[Groundswell]

No such thing as a free Munch.

 

[INTERL0PER]

There is a difference between getting paid, and making whatever art makes the most money. Artists obviously need to eat, so they need money. people of any craft become better with more practice, and professional artists have the most available time to perfect their craft.

Also, selling out isnt a bad thing. Look what it did for the Beatles.

This.

Every great artist you've ever heard of has had to make compromises in order to be "successful" and continue to create the art that they want. Whether it's The Beatles or Michelangelo.

IMO, to truly "sell out", means you abandon any artistic inspiration and just do whatever makes the most money. In that situation you stop being an artist and become a businessman, or perhaps a craftsman. A lot of Pop Music and Hollywood Films would fit in to this category, which is why they're called the "Music Business" and the "Movie Business". I don't necessarily think this is "worse", per se, but it is certainly different.

It's still very possible to make money as an artist while still creating the kind of art you want. However, if you are unwilling to make any compromises in your work to make some money then it will make it more difficult, guaranteed. It is certainly possible though... Although I think then it becomes an argument of who's really benefitting in that situation. Yeah, you keep your "artistic integrity", but you lose out on the money, which means you need to find another way to make money, which means you ultimately spend less time creating the art you want.

IMO, too many artists are too precious with their art. Always desiring the perfect circumstances, the perfect environment, unwavering artistic integrity etc. When the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of art (especially successful art) is a work of compromise in one way or another. Whether it's modifying something to make it more palatable or simply changing things in order to work within a limited budget.

I'm an actor/writer and I've had to do jobs that were purely for the money and I've written plays which have gone through changes for a variety of reasons. Often, the changes that are made because of budget restrictions, for example, are the best things to have happened to a project, because it forces you to become more creative.

A great example is the absurd level of censorship during the 30s, 40s and 50s in Hollywood. There were heavy restrictions around anything sexual, which meant writers had to become very creative with innuendo, resulting in some of the most memorable and interesting dialogue in the history of film. These days filmmakers can get away with what ever they want (indie filmmakers particularly), but this often results in a lack of subtext and lack of finesse.

"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." - Orson Welles

 

[INTERL0PER]

No such thing as a free Munch.

 

[Task]

get paid for what you love to do.

is normal TS.

 

[Iroh]

You can be a businessman/woman and artist at the same time. You just need to know what your artistic identity is and hold on to it. If you think or experience that you can't do that with putting a price on it, then you can choose not to or better find out what makes you work as an artist and make adaptions for that.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not an artist and I find some of this contradictory.

If you're taking any of your art to the public space, looking to gauge public approval/acceptance then you're already "diluting" your art. Whether or not you're taking money too becomes irrelevant.

The moment your art stops being for yourself and purely for your self expression then you've compromised it.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with compromising art for business purposes. So I don't think an artist can "sell out", they can make popular art to entertain the widest amount of people (measured by how much of it people will actually pay for) or they can make art to entertain themselves (and then it doesn't matter if anyone ever sees/hears it or not). There is no middle ground.

 

[Chandler sama]

I agree that art is expression, but I don't necessarily think that it's communication. Someone who makes art for themselves is still an artist even if nobody else ever sees it. On the other side is the artisan who is extremely good at their craft, but doesn't care about the feeling aspect. Both are important, but I would say that the craftsmanship part is more important from a listeners point of view. From an artist point of view I can't say because that is an individual thing. As a musician I think a balance is important and constantly focusing on one or the other isn't good.

It's also important to note that if your goal is communication then you always have to compromise your ideas because other people won't always be able to understand. There are thousands of kids in music universities now writing modern classical music that nobody likes or wants to hear, but I'm sure they are expressing themselves. On the other hand John Williams has lots of pieces he's written purely for money that have made people happy, sad, worried, motivated, etc. He's done a great job communicating with millions of people through his work even though he did it all for money.

IMO you do a disservice to art when you try to think about it instead of feel it. The artists image, tools, status, motivation, etc have nothing to do with art. I prefer to judge art on its value to me personally, so the motivation behind it isn't something I care too much about.

 

[loyalyolayal]

get paid for what you love to do.

is normal TS.

It is a long hard road though like everything else...passion for profit is difficult.
When i was still in art school, i was set on being a full time artist. The lifestyle was alluring. Then 2 kids happened & now i work full time as a graphic artist. I dont consider my works as a art.
Once, a woman saw one of my paintings & tried to buy it. I was taken aback because i never thought of selling my paintings & i had to price myself out because i considered my paintings as works of art & only for the right price would i part with them.
That's when i realized why artists demands such fees for their works. But then there are those who abuse this but who am i to say which is art & which is not. It is a tricky slope.
Most of my buddies became art teachers because supporting yourself through art is a bitch.
But when you earn a reputation & become in demand, the lifestyle is great.

 

[loyalyolayal]

I agree that art is expression, but I don't necessarily think that it's communication. Someone who makes art for themselves is still an artist even if nobody else ever sees it. On the other side is the artisan who is extremely good at their craft, but doesn't care about the feeling aspect. Both are important, but I would say that the craftsmanship part is more important from a listeners point of view. From an artist point of view I can't say because that is an individual thing. As a musician I think a balance is important and constantly focusing on one or the other isn't good.

It's also important to note that if your goal is communication then you always have to compromise your ideas because other people won't always be able to understand. There are thousands of kids in music universities now writing modern classical music that nobody likes or wants to hear, but I'm sure they are expressing themselves. On the other hand John Williams has lots of pieces he's written purely for money that have made people happy, sad, worried, motivated, etc. He's done a great job communicating with millions of people through his work even though he did it all for money.

IMO you do a disservice to art when you try to think about it instead of feel it. The artists image, tools, status, motivation, etc have nothing to do with art. I prefer to judge art on its value to me personally, so the motivation behind it isn't something I care too much about.

Fucking nailed it man.