Random
More Money = Better Than
the most beautiful poem
I once talked to a graffiti artist who claimed that graffiti was the purest of all the arts because it couldn’t be sold. I said, what about guerilla art galleries? What about Bansky? He said that those things weren’t true graffiti, because true graffiti changes the moment you have the power to sell it. Kid tags rail cars in Oklahoma.
Couture, on the other side of the question; art designed with great profit in mind. Chanel director/designer Karl Lagerfeld recently tweeted, “Like poetry, fashion does not state anything. It merely suggests.” This might be true enough for fashion but it’s a fairly bullshit thing to say about poetry.
This is not to disparage graffiti or high fashion. Anything that can change the way I look at a brick wall or a human foot earns my respect. (It takes a lot, as I have set ways about walls and feet.) My question: How does art change when you decide you would like to try and use it to pay your electric bill? (How would the arts change if materials costs were flipped? $350 to use the word “love” but calfskin and emeralds are free?)
Tags: cash money, wordhustler
I’d agree that “suggests” sounds pretty bullshit, but I’d argue that “states” is pretty bullshit, too. I’m happy with “is,” though I’m pretty sure that’s not the popular option.
I’d agree that “suggests” sounds pretty bullshit, but I’d argue that “states” is pretty bullshit, too. I’m happy with “is,” though I’m pretty sure that’s not the popular option.
haha. i just asked google, this is funny:
“fashion statement” pulls 1.510.000 links
“poetry statement” pulls.. 1920 links.
haha. i just asked google, this is funny:
“fashion statement” pulls 1.510.000 links
“poetry statement” pulls.. 1920 links.
It turns into money. That’s how it changes. I ceases to have any value except of that what it can buy. And to a lot of people, that’s the only kind of art that matters. Your job is to figure out what art means to you and proceed with great haste.
It turns into money. That’s how it changes. I ceases to have any value except of that what it can buy. And to a lot of people, that’s the only kind of art that matters. Your job is to figure out what art means to you and proceed with great haste.
I am from Manchester and I am pissed.
I am from Manchester and I am pissed.
My feeling is that once you become a ‘professional’ artist/writer/whatever, you can still love your craft and experience love of it while doing it but you are no longer doing it ‘for the love of it.’ This may sound simple/obvious but, to me, it seems to state a lot more because ‘for the love’ has a much more complex meaning outside of it’s use in this discussion/argument.
My feeling is that once you become a ‘professional’ artist/writer/whatever, you can still love your craft and experience love of it while doing it but you are no longer doing it ‘for the love of it.’ This may sound simple/obvious but, to me, it seems to state a lot more because ‘for the love’ has a much more complex meaning outside of it’s use in this discussion/argument.
graffiti artists are incredibly boring; this question / the conflict you percieve is trite
graffiti artists are incredibly boring; this question / the conflict you percieve is trite
Curious about why Adam thinks graffiti artists are boring? And just because Amelia’s question has been asked before, and will be asked forever and ever, doesn’t mean it’s not worth asking. Personally I don’t think there’s shame in wanting money for art. But it’s a question of scale–when the drive for money supersedes the drive to work hard/”honestly,” the work might suffer. But it might not–necessity as great muse and all of that. In which case necessity becomes a bifurcated impulse: I must work as I must eat, etc. Most of us are too scared to live only by our creations, so we go to grad school or work in restaurants. Money can ruin art but it doesn’t have to, I don’t think. Maybe more accurately, money can turn people into douchebags, which can ruin their art.
Curious about why Adam thinks graffiti artists are boring? And just because Amelia’s question has been asked before, and will be asked forever and ever, doesn’t mean it’s not worth asking. Personally I don’t think there’s shame in wanting money for art. But it’s a question of scale–when the drive for money supersedes the drive to work hard/”honestly,” the work might suffer. But it might not–necessity as great muse and all of that. In which case necessity becomes a bifurcated impulse: I must work as I must eat, etc. Most of us are too scared to live only by our creations, so we go to grad school or work in restaurants. Money can ruin art but it doesn’t have to, I don’t think. Maybe more accurately, money can turn people into douchebags, which can ruin their art.
the anti-war movement is trite
pro-environmentalism is trite
wish I was above things as well
although you kind of have a point about graffiti artists.. but not a 100% accurate statement
the anti-war movement is trite
pro-environmentalism is trite
wish I was above things as well
although you kind of have a point about graffiti artists.. but not a 100% accurate statement
idk just seems really boring; also the dialogue surrounding art and money seems very very boring; if you want to write a book write a fucking book; if you want money from me I expect a return on that money
idk just seems really boring; also the dialogue surrounding art and money seems very very boring; if you want to write a book write a fucking book; if you want money from me I expect a return on that money
Haha you’re right Adam. However, less boring for me to think about in the context of one of the most visible fashion designers in one of the biggest houses leaning over in his birdcage and saying poetry == fashion. Given that the other conversation happening this week seems to be about responding to rejection letters (the answer to that discussion is also “if you want to write a book write a fucking book) I’m confident we don’t mind traveling old ground. How would a poem and a shoe be different if calfskin was free and the word “love” cost three hundred fifty dollars to use?
Haha you’re right Adam. However, less boring for me to think about in the context of one of the most visible fashion designers in one of the biggest houses leaning over in his birdcage and saying poetry == fashion. Given that the other conversation happening this week seems to be about responding to rejection letters (the answer to that discussion is also “if you want to write a book write a fucking book) I’m confident we don’t mind traveling old ground. How would a poem and a shoe be different if calfskin was free and the word “love” cost three hundred fifty dollars to use?
i don’t think wanting to get paid for your work is trite.
by a return do you mean you want to give them money and they give you a book? or a painting? the established system of money for goods? or do you mean you as in the publishing house giving someone money for their book which the house then sells? or the gallery taking commission? or is this you as the patron of the arts?
i think this has taken on a possibly snide tone, which i did not intend, and do not intend. i am curious.
i don’t think wanting to get paid for your work is trite.
by a return do you mean you want to give them money and they give you a book? or a painting? the established system of money for goods? or do you mean you as in the publishing house giving someone money for their book which the house then sells? or the gallery taking commission? or is this you as the patron of the arts?
i think this has taken on a possibly snide tone, which i did not intend, and do not intend. i am curious.
It doesn’t seem simple to me either. I’m curious about how fashion designers and visual artists work with a material cost that doesn’t enter into the conversation for writers. Writers have the leisure of considering the moment the intent shifts from love to profit, while other artists have to function in that profit scheme. Graffiti artists have to worry about material cost, though the kid I was talking to says you get around that by stealing your materials. Come to think of it he may have been on the methamphetamine at the time.
It doesn’t seem simple to me either. I’m curious about how fashion designers and visual artists work with a material cost that doesn’t enter into the conversation for writers. Writers have the leisure of considering the moment the intent shifts from love to profit, while other artists have to function in that profit scheme. Graffiti artists have to worry about material cost, though the kid I was talking to says you get around that by stealing your materials. Come to think of it he may have been on the methamphetamine at the time.
the word “love” should cost $350 to use.
If we take it as a tacit assumption that there’s even the possibility of making real money with poetry, which is a universe I would love to live in, I do think there’s a stigma associated with “selling out” or some such nonsense. But if I think of the most crassly commercial way to use a poem, let’s say to sell Nikes…. well, I’d do it. Why the fuck not. Because I have great difficulty imagining a poem written specifically to sell shoes that won’t sell itself, and poetry, and the writer first. It’ll sell poetry before it sells shoes. I like to write occaision poems, I like deadlines, I like to have a compartment to fuck around in. It doesn’t matter how rich or poor the poet is (p.s. they’re all poor), it’s either great or it’s not.
Fashion has to deal with a tricky balance between couture, $$$$$, and “sellabiility.” It has to be the abstract art piece that’s edgy and expensive while also being a consumer product that the buyer can wear and make their own expression with it. That’s an issue that poetry doesn’t really have to deal with.
the word “love” should cost $350 to use.
If we take it as a tacit assumption that there’s even the possibility of making real money with poetry, which is a universe I would love to live in, I do think there’s a stigma associated with “selling out” or some such nonsense. But if I think of the most crassly commercial way to use a poem, let’s say to sell Nikes…. well, I’d do it. Why the fuck not. Because I have great difficulty imagining a poem written specifically to sell shoes that won’t sell itself, and poetry, and the writer first. It’ll sell poetry before it sells shoes. I like to write occaision poems, I like deadlines, I like to have a compartment to fuck around in. It doesn’t matter how rich or poor the poet is (p.s. they’re all poor), it’s either great or it’s not.
Fashion has to deal with a tricky balance between couture, $$$$$, and “sellabiility.” It has to be the abstract art piece that’s edgy and expensive while also being a consumer product that the buyer can wear and make their own expression with it. That’s an issue that poetry doesn’t really have to deal with.
Somebody said it already, but I just want to recall it: “True artist lives for creating, and doesn’t create for living”
Somebody said it already, but I just want to recall it: “True artist lives for creating, and doesn’t create for living”
It would be funny if poets had to strike that same balance. I would like to see the poem that is lovely but strives for a more accessible sentiment and the poem that reaches for something larger. Maybe Billy Collins does this? I haven’t read him since Picnic, Lightning when he seemed generally accessible in a way that was not fun to read.
It would be funny if poets had to strike that same balance. I would like to see the poem that is lovely but strives for a more accessible sentiment and the poem that reaches for something larger. Maybe Billy Collins does this? I haven’t read him since Picnic, Lightning when he seemed generally accessible in a way that was not fun to read.
I like the poet-seers who write a poem and an accompanying book of philosophy. “States” doesn’t sound bullshit but I’d be happier with “sees” for both arts described. “Is” works too sure
I like the poet-seers who write a poem and an accompanying book of philosophy. “States” doesn’t sound bullshit but I’d be happier with “sees” for both arts described. “Is” works too sure
If you wanna see some good graffitti, ride Amtrak between Richmond, CA and San Jose. Round trip. Look east for first half of the ride, then west on the return trip. I only wish the train went slower.
If you wanna see some good graffitti, ride Amtrak between Richmond, CA and San Jose. Round trip. Look east for first half of the ride, then west on the return trip. I only wish the train went slower.
With all due respect the notion that there is such a thing as a true artist is total bullshit.
With all due respect the notion that there is such a thing as a true artist is total bullshit.
Amelia, maybe Worthington’s Law can explain it for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo&feature=related
Amelia, maybe Worthington’s Law can explain it for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo&feature=related
by kyle’s rationale the only true way to make art ‘for the love’ of art is to be so wealthy that you don’t care to ever recieve compensation for said art. right?
and with material costs, it seems that is something that plagues most art forms far more than writing.
then again, if you’re rich enough it doesn’t matter. or subidised enough.
art can come from beverly hills or communist russia. that is it. otherwise there will always be some form of consideration of what aesthetics are more profitable.
that being said, i think the assumption that writers whose craft is steered by forms that have been historically known to produce profits through hefty sales are somehow inferior as artists is paltry. does art have to be ignorant of popularity? shouldn’t artist be blatantly aware of what is popular? and is steering your art in the direction of unpopularity as bad as steering your art toward commercial success? What’s the difference? Either way you are allowing yourself to be manipulated.
by kyle’s rationale the only true way to make art ‘for the love’ of art is to be so wealthy that you don’t care to ever recieve compensation for said art. right?
and with material costs, it seems that is something that plagues most art forms far more than writing.
then again, if you’re rich enough it doesn’t matter. or subidised enough.
art can come from beverly hills or communist russia. that is it. otherwise there will always be some form of consideration of what aesthetics are more profitable.
that being said, i think the assumption that writers whose craft is steered by forms that have been historically known to produce profits through hefty sales are somehow inferior as artists is paltry. does art have to be ignorant of popularity? shouldn’t artist be blatantly aware of what is popular? and is steering your art in the direction of unpopularity as bad as steering your art toward commercial success? What’s the difference? Either way you are allowing yourself to be manipulated.
I think the weirdest thing is that your average Alexander McQueen isn’t particularly accessible. It’s incredibly abstracted, but that’s what the fashion world is, right? In the sort of cultural ether, “fashion” (as opposed to clothing) is assumed to be the province of things that are not straightforward, in a utilitarian clothing sense. And since that’s the assumption from the get-go, it’s able to attract people to it that normally might not “get” it, because it’s “stigma” is non-restrictive. There’s no platonic ideal of fashion.
Our “accessibility,” in a wider-than-the-poetry-community setting, is almost non-existent, outside of Billy Collins and Maya Angelou, who I don’t think up-and-coming poets are trying to emulate. I can look at a dress and say “pretty colors. Neat pattern” and that’s ok! No one (outside of Karl Lagerfeld, probably) would say that my reaction was incorrect. Insufficient, sure, not incorrect. But we’re taught at an early age to “get it” with a poem, comprehension is pushed, at the expense of reactions like “cool sound.” So, you’re really only accessible if you write about simple, “universal” shit, or you write platitudinal.
But I can buy (if I had a fuckton of money) a McQueen shirt, and then wearing that shirt becomes a personal expression of “my style” and (provided I didn’t flash the label around) interpretable by my friends as “my style,” an expression of individuality. Can’t do that with a poem. Only my least favorite kind of people judge their friends by their bookshelf. What I read is not a personal artistic expression. It’s a preference, a consumption, but I can’t wear Scorch Atlas (yet…)
that was a ramble. I hope it made sense.
I think the weirdest thing is that your average Alexander McQueen isn’t particularly accessible. It’s incredibly abstracted, but that’s what the fashion world is, right? In the sort of cultural ether, “fashion” (as opposed to clothing) is assumed to be the province of things that are not straightforward, in a utilitarian clothing sense. And since that’s the assumption from the get-go, it’s able to attract people to it that normally might not “get” it, because it’s “stigma” is non-restrictive. There’s no platonic ideal of fashion.
Our “accessibility,” in a wider-than-the-poetry-community setting, is almost non-existent, outside of Billy Collins and Maya Angelou, who I don’t think up-and-coming poets are trying to emulate. I can look at a dress and say “pretty colors. Neat pattern” and that’s ok! No one (outside of Karl Lagerfeld, probably) would say that my reaction was incorrect. Insufficient, sure, not incorrect. But we’re taught at an early age to “get it” with a poem, comprehension is pushed, at the expense of reactions like “cool sound.” So, you’re really only accessible if you write about simple, “universal” shit, or you write platitudinal.
But I can buy (if I had a fuckton of money) a McQueen shirt, and then wearing that shirt becomes a personal expression of “my style” and (provided I didn’t flash the label around) interpretable by my friends as “my style,” an expression of individuality. Can’t do that with a poem. Only my least favorite kind of people judge their friends by their bookshelf. What I read is not a personal artistic expression. It’s a preference, a consumption, but I can’t wear Scorch Atlas (yet…)
that was a ramble. I hope it made sense.
cosign.
cosign.
I agree. Personally, if someone tells me they are an artist, who am I to quibble over what is true in that respect? What is the opposite of “true” in that context? Everyone has their own definitions. I don’t even have to like their art or the intentions behind it.
I agree. Personally, if someone tells me they are an artist, who am I to quibble over what is true in that respect? What is the opposite of “true” in that context? Everyone has their own definitions. I don’t even have to like their art or the intentions behind it.
Quick, we need to get Scorch Atlas on t-shirts.
Quick, we need to get Scorch Atlas on t-shirts.
I’m getting tired of the poets don’t ever get money thing. In the past month, one poet friend of mine got 15,000 for her poems, a Lily something or another prize whatnot, then another got 54,000 Minn state grant. This keeps happening to people I know.
I’m getting tired of the poets don’t ever get money thing. In the past month, one poet friend of mine got 15,000 for her poems, a Lily something or another prize whatnot, then another got 54,000 Minn state grant. This keeps happening to people I know.
Many of ‘the greats’ could only write under the gun. Being strapped financially should be used as an impetus to put ass in seat and really get to it ( Dostoyevsky comes to mind, had to gamble away all his dough before he could write)… unfortunately, for most of use “being strapped for cash” means I can’t buy a new macbook right now, not I can’t eat right now. Perhaps we all need more kids to create.
Many of ‘the greats’ could only write under the gun. Being strapped financially should be used as an impetus to put ass in seat and really get to it ( Dostoyevsky comes to mind, had to gamble away all his dough before he could write)… unfortunately, for most of use “being strapped for cash” means I can’t buy a new macbook right now, not I can’t eat right now. Perhaps we all need more kids to create.
most of ‘us’ – that is
most of ‘us’ – that is
“graffiti artists are incredibly boring”
?
i don’t know, dude. why do you feel this way?
i think the graffiti off the bedford stop is boring. but all graffiti artists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bixgM7sUVA
i think being too jaded and forgetting the roots of things is boring.
“graffiti artists are incredibly boring”
?
i don’t know, dude. why do you feel this way?
i think the graffiti off the bedford stop is boring. but all graffiti artists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bixgM7sUVA
i think being too jaded and forgetting the roots of things is boring.
I mean I want to enjoy the book
fashion, the art world, and poetry are all operate on the same kind of rules, I think: insiders, outsiders wanting in, what is beauty, who defines the world we live in, how do I make my life better, etc.
maybe the difference is in the demographics drawn to each one
poet: “fashion is shallow”
artist: “blah blah blah”
fashion person: “I like art”
I mean I want to enjoy the book
fashion, the art world, and poetry are all operate on the same kind of rules, I think: insiders, outsiders wanting in, what is beauty, who defines the world we live in, how do I make my life better, etc.
maybe the difference is in the demographics drawn to each one
poet: “fashion is shallow”
artist: “blah blah blah”
fashion person: “I like art”
then everyone would be designing/wearing calfskin and emeralds. there would be fashion shows everywhere all the time. people would have tiny fashion shows down their carpeted suburban hallways and post the videos to youtube and track the popularity of their designs by youtube hits. everyone would complain about not being able to make any money from their designs because too many people are too willing to donate all their designs to goodwill or to the homeless because they care more about that people are wearing their designs than about making money, so the avant-garde fashion market becomes thoroughly flooded. poetry would be extinct.
then everyone would be designing/wearing calfskin and emeralds. there would be fashion shows everywhere all the time. people would have tiny fashion shows down their carpeted suburban hallways and post the videos to youtube and track the popularity of their designs by youtube hits. everyone would complain about not being able to make any money from their designs because too many people are too willing to donate all their designs to goodwill or to the homeless because they care more about that people are wearing their designs than about making money, so the avant-garde fashion market becomes thoroughly flooded. poetry would be extinct.
Excellent post, Amelia! I don’t think the question ever gets old and I love the discussion around it. I just wanted to defend couture designers as somewhat more pure artists than many think, since it’s actually not entirely accurate to say that couture is designed with great profit in mind. Designers actually don’t make much money from couture, and in fact they’re expected to produce shows and fashion that are more art objects than wearable. The art defines the brand, especially for iconic houses like Chanel, Lanvin, Dior, etc to keep them fresh and at the forefront of couture. In fact designers are often judged, like artists, for not being edgy enough, eg criticism of Vivienne Westwood’s supposedly edgy “homeless look” as already “done” years ago. Of course, the art is not entirely divorced from profit, since although the couture clothing is only custom-ordered, these fashion houses have to use the branding done by the couture line to sell the ready-to-wear lines and associated other lines like shoes, beauty, etc. But at the same time, if a brand like Chanel is seen as too “commercial,” it devalues the brand and the artists who work to create it.
Anyway, sorry to drone on…just wanted to make the point that even for couture designers, the “pure” art/profit line is pretty blurry.
Excellent post, Amelia! I don’t think the question ever gets old and I love the discussion around it. I just wanted to defend couture designers as somewhat more pure artists than many think, since it’s actually not entirely accurate to say that couture is designed with great profit in mind. Designers actually don’t make much money from couture, and in fact they’re expected to produce shows and fashion that are more art objects than wearable. The art defines the brand, especially for iconic houses like Chanel, Lanvin, Dior, etc to keep them fresh and at the forefront of couture. In fact designers are often judged, like artists, for not being edgy enough, eg criticism of Vivienne Westwood’s supposedly edgy “homeless look” as already “done” years ago. Of course, the art is not entirely divorced from profit, since although the couture clothing is only custom-ordered, these fashion houses have to use the branding done by the couture line to sell the ready-to-wear lines and associated other lines like shoes, beauty, etc. But at the same time, if a brand like Chanel is seen as too “commercial,” it devalues the brand and the artists who work to create it.
Anyway, sorry to drone on…just wanted to make the point that even for couture designers, the “pure” art/profit line is pretty blurry.
This is like saying that cannery workers make a lot of money because you know four who pooled their paychecks and won the lottery.
This is like saying that cannery workers make a lot of money because you know four who pooled their paychecks and won the lottery.
This is what I’m saying
This is what I’m saying
Great thoughts here Jon. I appreciate the part about fashion being a personal expression of style even if it’s a mass-produced expression. A friend of mine told me that she planned to buy and wear a dress designed by Rodarte for Target “Even if people know I got it from Target.” It struck me as a funny thing to say at the time, from a girl who is not one of those grating brand-conscious types, but I get it from the context of fashion as a very personal statement with an incongruously standard origin.
It’s a shame that “comprehension is pushed” in poetry in a way it isn’t with fashion. Perhaps one way to look at it is that because the preferences one may develop with poetry are such a personal thing, well-meaning teachers try to show the paths to their own appreciation. Unfortunately it’s like ripping a skirt apart at the seams to show someone how it’s stitched.
Great thoughts here Jon. I appreciate the part about fashion being a personal expression of style even if it’s a mass-produced expression. A friend of mine told me that she planned to buy and wear a dress designed by Rodarte for Target “Even if people know I got it from Target.” It struck me as a funny thing to say at the time, from a girl who is not one of those grating brand-conscious types, but I get it from the context of fashion as a very personal statement with an incongruously standard origin.
It’s a shame that “comprehension is pushed” in poetry in a way it isn’t with fashion. Perhaps one way to look at it is that because the preferences one may develop with poetry are such a personal thing, well-meaning teachers try to show the paths to their own appreciation. Unfortunately it’s like ripping a skirt apart at the seams to show someone how it’s stitched.
Thanks Amber–excellent points I hadn’t considered. Couture work defines the brand and it also defies it, as it takes a business that thrives on ready-to-wear lines and works to simultaneously set the standard as it creates the most unique image possible–within a scope. I don’t think purity of art (what is that) necessarily has to happen without profit, though I do like to speculate how money changes it. I think darby’s post above is a good answer.
Thanks Amber–excellent points I hadn’t considered. Couture work defines the brand and it also defies it, as it takes a business that thrives on ready-to-wear lines and works to simultaneously set the standard as it creates the most unique image possible–within a scope. I don’t think purity of art (what is that) necessarily has to happen without profit, though I do like to speculate how money changes it. I think darby’s post above is a good answer.
tangentially relevant:
http://exoskeleton-johannes.blogspot.com/2010/01/inarticulate-fashion-narrative-poetry.html
tangentially relevant:
http://exoskeleton-johannes.blogspot.com/2010/01/inarticulate-fashion-narrative-poetry.html
i don’t know. i’m genuinely concerned with how to make my life better.
i don’t know. i’m genuinely concerned with how to make my life better.
yes.
yes.
Well, agree, the “true artist” was rather not kind of “self-definition”. It’s impossible to distinguish, what or who is an artist, not to mention about his “trueness” in context of art history etc. The message is just, the living for creation of art is more… ehm… creative, than creating art in order to live for it.
Sure, DaVinci and Michelangelo, just everybody also made art for money. But not only. And in this context “making art for money” I feel some deficit of creativity directly in the point of “selling”. Because – in extreme sample – if somebody wants to sell his art, he mostly looks at what people need and desire (ergo, how he can make more money with his art), and not at what he wants to make with his/her art. Perhaps, the balance between “people needs” and “own creative needs” is the magic key.
I don’t want to play a judge of an artist creating art for himself versus an artist creating art for money. And surely everybody needs fínancial support, this prosaic factor “money” has always been existential from the beginning of the days.
Just, if I see art, which was made only in order to be sold, I often miss the factor of creativity. Just to compare: Dalí was businessman: he knew, what people want, and for what they will pay. Kurt Schwitters in opposition made his Merzbaus, which most people didn’t get and understood, because he made it after his own desire, after his own imagination. Schwitters surely made paintings to sell them, because it was the only way to exist on the lone island near Norway, in exile. But his major focus was directed to his Merz, to his art he was making for years. And this was completely misunderstood in Norway (compare his letters from Hjertøya).
I personally – and art is always personally – like Kurt Schwitters more than Dalí, because I see Schwitters’ “trueness” and – beware – in this context an artist is “true to himself”. I mean, he doesn’t lie to himself making art, he belives in things he does, even if it will completely miss the mainstream and will bring himself into existential ruin (which also came unfortunately in the case of Kurt Schwitters). This is the meaning of “true” in the notation above. Perhaps there is better adjective in English, I’d be glad to be corrected.
Short, I agree, the adjectiv “true” fails completely in the context of art definition. But the tendence of an artist to sell, instead of make art after his own imagination and inner universe, makes his art a little bit poorer. So I think, it’s fully legitimately of an artist to make his art for money, in the sake of supporting of his own further personal projects, like David Lynch or Mamoru Oshii do it. Sure, there are plenty many artists, getting financially successful, even without intending it. But money is the worst drug. It helps people to fly, but it brings people down, if they wanna fly too high like Icarus.
And if somebody makes his art only for selling, I cannot really feel with him.
Well, agree, the “true artist” was rather not kind of “self-definition”. It’s impossible to distinguish, what or who is an artist, not to mention about his “trueness” in context of art history etc. The message is just, the living for creation of art is more… ehm… creative, than creating art in order to live for it.
Sure, DaVinci and Michelangelo, just everybody also made art for money. But not only. And in this context “making art for money” I feel some deficit of creativity directly in the point of “selling”. Because – in extreme sample – if somebody wants to sell his art, he mostly looks at what people need and desire (ergo, how he can make more money with his art), and not at what he wants to make with his/her art. Perhaps, the balance between “people needs” and “own creative needs” is the magic key.
I don’t want to play a judge of an artist creating art for himself versus an artist creating art for money. And surely everybody needs fínancial support, this prosaic factor “money” has always been existential from the beginning of the days.
Just, if I see art, which was made only in order to be sold, I often miss the factor of creativity. Just to compare: Dalí was businessman: he knew, what people want, and for what they will pay. Kurt Schwitters in opposition made his Merzbaus, which most people didn’t get and understood, because he made it after his own desire, after his own imagination. Schwitters surely made paintings to sell them, because it was the only way to exist on the lone island near Norway, in exile. But his major focus was directed to his Merz, to his art he was making for years. And this was completely misunderstood in Norway (compare his letters from Hjertøya).
I personally – and art is always personally – like Kurt Schwitters more than Dalí, because I see Schwitters’ “trueness” and – beware – in this context an artist is “true to himself”. I mean, he doesn’t lie to himself making art, he belives in things he does, even if it will completely miss the mainstream and will bring himself into existential ruin (which also came unfortunately in the case of Kurt Schwitters). This is the meaning of “true” in the notation above. Perhaps there is better adjective in English, I’d be glad to be corrected.
Short, I agree, the adjectiv “true” fails completely in the context of art definition. But the tendence of an artist to sell, instead of make art after his own imagination and inner universe, makes his art a little bit poorer. So I think, it’s fully legitimately of an artist to make his art for money, in the sake of supporting of his own further personal projects, like David Lynch or Mamoru Oshii do it. Sure, there are plenty many artists, getting financially successful, even without intending it. But money is the worst drug. It helps people to fly, but it brings people down, if they wanna fly too high like Icarus.
And if somebody makes his art only for selling, I cannot really feel with him.
Perhaps if I summarize all I wrote here down with one sentence, it were this one.
It’s fully OK, if somebody makes money with art. It just depends, where his focus lies: on “money” or on “art”.
Perhaps if I summarize all I wrote here down with one sentence, it were this one.
It’s fully OK, if somebody makes money with art. It just depends, where his focus lies: on “money” or on “art”.
@davidpeak if you follow my blog, (and leave a comment at the bottom to let me know you are following), I will attempt a post in the style of noah cicero about why I “feel” graffiti is boring / past its time / an empty gesture
@davidpeak if you follow my blog, (and leave a comment at the bottom to let me know you are following), I will attempt a post in the style of noah cicero about why I “feel” graffiti is boring / past its time / an empty gesture
[…] dead horse of artists selling out vs. remaining true to their work (already a discussion going on at HTML Giant), but advances are often insubstantial. (Okay, a couple grand sounds pretty good, actually, though […]