For love or Money
Many of my artist friends and I are struggling with making a living. This seems to be a trend throughout history for many artists. Almost every one of them has said that the art they make for the public is not the art they truly believe in and they sell this "marketable" art to support their "unmarketable" art. There are cases of selling the work that we hold sacred but they seem to be few and far between. We are constantly in a position of compromising between the work we truly beleive in and making work that we hope will have market value. At the same time it is a struggle to create art that is free from marketability. In the film industry it is a common practice for film-makers to make trashy blockbusters in order to fund the films that they truly hold sacred. These films are always a huge gamble and they know they may not make any money. But since they are paid for the film-maker is free from worrying about the marketability of the film and are not influenced by having to sell the film to the public. Some of these films go on to be "cult classics". Why would one want to make art that does not sell? Why does the public not want to support the art that the artist holds sacred? Why does non-confrontational mindless work fill our office buildings, public spaces, movie theaters, music halls, etc..
posted by kpnil at 7:20 AM
5 Comments:
what is more important to sell or to create?
3:23 PM
In an ideal world, artists should be supported for what they do and for what they are able to see. Artists are responsible for critisising society in order to further ourselves as a species. Exposing humanities strengths and weaknesses through are miriad of artistic styles, techniques and tricks. In this commodity driven society the art object seems to take on the validity and the value. Artists should be paid by the government and given validity for their vision and not their products. In my opinion what is more important is to be continually creative
7:54 AM
OK, maybe not payed by the government but it seems that the role of the artist is continually forced into the role of the object maker instead of the idea liberator. In a capitalist society where everything is bought and sold the artist is inevitably and continually marginalized. I know there are artists that have transcended this but damn, I'm bitter today, Sorry about that.
11:50 AM
it took me a while before even knowing what to say. the question seems very difficult. great post!
it seems that personal judgement somehow has to come into the picture and therefore, notions such as 'inferior' or 'challenging' become totally subjective, because of which the question appears to be "ill posed".
and at the same time, paradoxically, one cannot help but agree that there is an abundance of inferior, unpassionate, unthinking, and unchallenging art that is so widely sought.
i think the role of the artist is to totally ignore this external noise of demand and only produce art via his deep personal vision, passion, thinking, and being.
9:17 PM
Don't get high on your own supply!
I think you've got to consider that the majority of art galleries and private art collectors made thier money outside of art. but millions still benefit from their their commercial enterprise. So there is an art to wealth creation.
you have to earn enough money to finance your addiction, be it dance, music or ,spoken word painting - or art galleries -
art is still part of , and subject to , lifes processes. remember, paying the bills on the first of each month, is also an art. So is raising a family, or making it to work on time ( or at all ) They're all forms of personal expression.
There is an art to balancing the satisfaction of the consumer with your own desires.
1:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home