Something I hate about any creative industry is that many people have an instinctive hate of anyone who is a creator, yet stops "doing it for the art and sells out." Many people seem to have this vision of artists as people who are uncaring about money, who just want to create, who want to shape the world and that's all. In many cases this is absolutely correct, but you see, when you want to shape the world through a particular medium and that's all, it means that you either have to find a way to make money off of it, or become immortal and learn to spontaneously bring about the various materials consumed by your chosen medium.
Now don't get me wrong, there are people out there who stop doing something for the love of doing it and start doing it for the money, as well as people who never loved it and just do it for the money right from the start. Hacks like those shouldn't be tolerated, but at the same time it is hardly fair to begin attacking any artist who stops being "indie" and starts going "commercial". Creators need compensation for what they create, and they need more than just recognition, that recognition needs to translate into hard cash at some point or the person has to devote time to doing other things besides their art.
Take me for example. I make videogames, I'm, for all intensive purposes, an indie developer currently working on the game Mystic Empyrean: Rebuild as president and lead producer of Fancy Hat Studios. I could just release the game for free (actually no, I couldn't, due to contracts and legal licensing stuff I have with Brad Talton, the maker of Mystic Empyrean, but ignore that for the moment), but then I have to ask: "How am I supposed to keep running this game? How do I pay those helping me on it?" Obviously I could not, I need to start making money somewhere, and I need to make it in a steady amount rather than depending on charity (this people, is why the government diverts taxes into various good will projects rather than allowing charity to take over 100% like many libertarians wish to happen).
"Pure Art" is all well and good, but chances are that any one who complains about someone "selling out" is simply pissed off at having to actually start PAYING the guy for his creative works, or is pissed off that he hasn't managed to do the same. Harsh, but true never the less. Most often though, I think of these people as simply too stupid to actually put thought into what they're saying, because I'm a nice guy, and I prefer to think that people are stupid rather than malevolent.
I do agree with you in that at some point "true artists" need a form of compensation in order to obtain more resources and continue doing what they love. I don't necessarily think that they are selling out, because the artist is still doing something that is their passion and loves every minute of it. But now at this point the work the artist has get to obtain a value which I think is important for all forms of art, whether it is film, paintings, architecture, etc. Anyone who is doing it for the "love of it" only most probably is not in need of the extra money and can simply work and make the art without caring about getting money out of it. Otherwise I think most artists at one point or another come to a time where there begin to search for that spotlight and gain value on their hard work.
ReplyDeleteThere is an argument to be made against those who "sell out" from their respective industry, however, I feel you are correct in calling out the overall negative tone that many who apply their talents for financial gain receive. I feel anyone who truly loves what they do will never "sell out" because it is in that love and purity that real art is created. Whether or not the individual is generating profits is a secondary issue. It is a cop out from those who do always try to go against "the man" or "the establishment" to call out those in their field who strive for money while doing what they love. People are rational beings who understand how to put themselves in the most advantageous positions possible. Just because someone is making money does not mean that they are losing the integrity of their work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that artists should be compensated for their hard work just as any other profession is. Your post reminded of something I heard Damien Hirst say in an interview on Charlie Rose that went something (not exactly) like this: "Use the money to chase the art, not the art to chase the money". I think that compensated artists should feel obligated to continue striving toward realizing their artistic dreams and not just sit on a pile of cash when they have finally "made" it. Damien Hirst's work is by a lot of standards completely overpriced but I think one good test of an artist is to see if he/she will continue working with as much fervor when they make it as when they first started out.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I wouldn't be too worried about the artists who start with the intention of making money. I think their work will most often not be as honest and thus not as compelling as someone who is doing it simply from their gut, their heart, their brain or all three. If someone with that motivation does end up making a bunch of money from their art, well then maybe you can call their act of deception a work of art in itself. The problem and the positive of art is that it is entirely subjective.
Being a filmmaker I definitely relate to what you are saying here. Artists of any medium need to make a living but also want to maintain their individual style and quality. But I feel like there are different degrees of selling out. In film you would see selling out if an indie director all of a sudden started making big-budget Hollywood movies like Transformers in order to get a big pay day. I feel like it's pretty uncommon to see that once directors have branded themselves in the industry. You also hear sellout often associated with hip-hop culture. A great example of a sellout is the hip-hop artist Ice Cube! Ice Cube used to be with NWA and was associated with one of the hardest dudes in the game. You can now find him featured on television in black family comedies and doing terrible Coors Light commercials. Guess what Ice Cube, no one cares who is colder but your soft cuddly demeanor makes me want to throw back a few beers myself.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting post. The other day I was reading an article about the band U2. While they clearly do their part to raise awareness of issues around the world and consistently push musical boundaries, the author was questioning whether it was because the band genuinely cares or because they want to make more money. The author concluded that while Bono seems to be genuine, he also seems to have had the vision of becoming a rockstar since the band first started. I think the same could be said for most artists; they pick up an art form because they love it, but their goal is to make it to the top. While I don't think that making money should be the primary goal of artists, I don't have any problems with it being a consideration during the creative process.
ReplyDelete