Last week, in a smoky speakeasy style bar, an argument took place. The participants were from all different backgrounds, American, French, Cambodian, Dutch, or some combination of the above, from artists to advocates to researchers. The subject of debate was the title of this post: is it possible for art to be commercial without losing its creativity and artistic integrity?
It was such a fascinating discussion that I wanted to make a post about it with my own thoughts, as I think it's a pretty common debate among artists. It is actually the foremost problem for artists. How do you make money and be an artist?
The common answer is, you can't. Or at least, not much. Art is not about making money, in fact, is the common thought. And if it is, it's "commercial", and is therefore less artistic, because it was created to please an audience.
There are two extremes, as far as I can see. There is the extreme business side, which views art mostly as a waste of time and will only give it the time of day if it thinks it can be sold or marketed. It's the "only what can make money, and if it can't, it's not worth anything" side of things. Then there is the extreme art side, which is the idea that art should be made only for arts' sake and only to express the artists' feelings, that it's not meant to be understood by a larger audience, where the spectator must put himself into the artists' shoes, thoughts, and philosophy in order to truly see what the piece is about. This is the side that sees any concession to the business side as betraying the artistic integrity of the artist and their work.
As for me, I'm firmly convinced that while the two extremes certainly exist, a middle ground also exists, where the two cross and blend. Somewhere where art can be sold and appreciated by a larger audience, but still keeps its integrity.
To make commercial art -- that is, when you make art with the idea of pleasing an audience -- does not make you less of an artist, someone in the group argued, but it is less creative. I disagree. If I create something that I think will please an audience (and myself), it is still an act of creation. If I didn't create it, it wouldn't exist. Yes, but doesn't that make you less independent? was the next question.
Does it? Maybe. But I don't want to be independent. I don't want to create something that only I can understand, that comes only from me and is created only for its own sake. I'm interested in creating work that can be shared, understood. Is it about the money? No, it's not. It's about the experience.
That's where I think the cross is. When it is "entertainment," "commercial," "artistic," it's under a label. But how about shared human experience? Something that humans can look at and understand something of, whether it be a gesture or a story or a painting. Because they recognize something of their own humanity, they like it, buy it, consume it, watch it, whatever. But the act of portraying something of humanness, human experience, is purely artistic.
Do I think I'll be rich as an artist? No, I don't. Do I think I'll have enough to continue? Yes. And yes, I do think art can be "commercial" and still retain its integrity. Creation is creation, whoever it's made for. One of my friends used the example of Frederick Ashton, the artistic director of the Royal Ballet in London. He deliberately made ballets with the intention of pleasing the audience, and yet you will find very few people who would not call his work "art".
The business business has no time for art, and the artist artist has no time for business. It is very rare to find someone who is both a brilliant marketer and a brilliant artist. But I do think the two can work together, if both are open to each other, and find a way forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment