Should an artist write for himself or the audience?

[JimmyNic]

It's strange that depending on the artform people have very different attitudes regarding how commercial things should be. It's generally accepted that for blockbuster films with blockbuster production values there needs to be a strong mainstream appeal - how else will you recoup the costs? But barely a day goes by in music where a band isn't accused of "selling out" and in certain artistic circles it seems that popularity is not just unworthy of pursuit but to be actively avoided.

Does it diminish the artistic value of a piece that it has been crafted for the majority? Is it dishonourable to want to make money off your art and to make a conscious effort to do so? Is it possible to achieve those ends without compromising on your artistic vision? Does art have a responsibility to challenge? Should an artist's main concern be to entertain himself or his audience?

Go nuts.

[grandpa]

It's strange that depending on the artform people have very
different attitudes regarding how commercial things should be.
It's generally accepted that for blockbuster films with blockbuster production
values there needs to be a strong mainstream appeal - how
else will you recoup the costs?

In my opinion, art should be for a reason other than money. Someone can make money and still be an artist, but there's a thin line between that and having it become a career. It's hard to become a "sellout" artist then reverse roles for the next round. It's also hard not to sell out, because commercialism swallows up so many aspects of life.

I watched a film this morning called "Exit Through The Gift Shop," and it seems to address this very topic. I can't gather the opinions of everyone who has watched it, but I assume many would baiscally say what I said above.

On top of that, there's really something to the "Do something just to do something" idea. I don't necessarily think art needs an elaborate vision, or a large audience, to be positive (assuming one wants their work to be "positive").

Grandpa h.

[Muckraker]

But barely a day goes by in music where a band isn't accused of "selling out" and in certain artistic circles it seems that popularity is not just unworthy of pursuit but to be actively avoided.

I think some of these accusations are from the underground crowd that may like a band because it's good but also because other people haven't heard of the band. Some people like to think they are the discoverer of a rare gem and they don't like it when soccer moms are walking around wearing that very same gem.

Does it diminish the artistic value of a piece that it has been crafted for the majority?

I don't know that some popular songs would have much artistic value even if the artist wasn't trying for mass appeal--or if it never even reached the ears of the masses. We may think that Stephanie Meyer wrote to the masses but there is also a reasonable chance the Twilight books are exactly what she wanted to write and are about as artsy as she's going to get.

Also, is part of your purpose to get a message out to the masses? If it is then you need to slip your mental roofies in the flavor Kool-Aid people are actually going to drink. Your message isn't likely to be heard if you serve it up in a glass of piss.

Is it dishonourable to want to make money off your art and to make a conscious effort to do so?

What are the alternatives? You could pull a Bukowski and work at the Post Office for years while creating your art but it's a waste of time and energy if people will pay for your art and that's what you are best at doing. Alcohol and cigarettes are expensive.

Is it possible to achieve those ends without compromising on your artistic vision?

If people are willing to pay for your art as it is.

Does art have a responsibility to challenge?

Naw. Art is primarily to entertain and stuff that tries to hard to package a challenge with that entertainment can turn into crap pretty quick. There's something to be said for music that compels millions of people to move their bodies, even if the message of the music is simply "I'm sexy and I know it" (which my four-year-old walks around the house saying).

Should an artist's main concern be to entertain himself or his audience?

Whatever the artist wants. Ideally the artist entertaining him/herself will also entertain the audience. I'm not big into ten minute technical guitar solos myself but I know a few people that really enjoy watching someone jerk off with a guitar.

[Jack]

I consider most art, whether it be painting, music or writing, to be an expression of something in the artist's mind that is best expressed in the art-form they choose. If it resonates with others it may become popular and commercially viable. But I don't get the impression that most artists start out to be commercially successful. They start out wanting to express a thought or emotion that they can only express through their art. The rest comes later if at all.

[grandpa]

Even individually, styles change.
I used to mostly make noise that barely could count as music. It was just experimenting with effects pedals and metal objects on the strings. I could have scared any damn cat in the neighborhood.

Now, though, I'm considerably more tame, and not necessarily in a bad way. But still, those early years of sheer experimentation have informed my sound, as comparatively non-commercial as they were (not that I sell anything now, but you know what I mean).

The point is, if you feel passionate about something, make that part of your artistic vision. If you're not feeling it, don't bother doing it. And don't emphasize making things that exist already. They exist already.

Find common ground with an audience, but don't let that define you.
General communication teaches us this lesson; Smalltalk is a part of conversation, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation.

Grandpa h.

[Strawman]

Does it diminish the artistic value of a piece that it has been crafted for the majority?

Absolutely not. Stanley Kubrick was one of the great American directors, some of his movies are among the highest achievement in cinematic art, but his best movies are also his most popular, and were consciously designed to be so.

Kubrick flicks are artistically uncompromising. For example, no other science fiction director has emphasized the silence of space, as he did in 2001. This movie in particular is one of his strangest: long sequences without dialogue, central characters depicted in a cold, almost emotionless way, strange pacing for the story, unanswered questions, etc.. But this flick, which he meticulously crafted over a period of four years, was a smash hit. And it was consciously crafted to be so.

Kubrick was so obsessive about the popular reception of his flicks that he would personally measure all the newspaper advertisements with a ruler, and if they were the were one millimeter smaller than the advertisement space contracted for, he would call up the newspaper to bitch.

Is it dishonourable to want to make money off your art and to make a conscious effort to do so?

I wouldn't say that Kubrick was necessarily in it for the money. He was an artist, and as an artist, he wanted his works to be well received. He seems to me to have been more concerned with his popular reception than he was with the response of the critics. Critical reception of 2001 was mixed, but vast swaths of the public ate it up. Just as Kubrick intended.

Is it possible to achieve those ends without compromising on your artistic vision?

If the artist is only in it for the money, then his art will suck. But, there is no art possible without an audience, especially movies, music, and novels. The artist always has some idea in his mind of who the audience is, and how they will receive his work. This is not compromising. Emily Dickinson wrote her poems for a public audience. Even if it was an audience that could only receive the poems after her death, it is still an audience. If she never wanted them to be read, she could have burned them.

Does art have a responsibility to challenge?

Yes. Bad artists also want to be popular, but they suck up to the audience. Spielberg is the king of this. Good artists manage to be entertaining and challenging, at the same time. This is Kubrick's approach.

My theory is that the popular audience actually wants to challenged, but directors like Spielberg and Cameron have been spoiling them, by only sucking up, instead of challenging them. Hence, the public is more receptive to crap like Transformers.

Should an artist's main concern be to entertain himself or his audience?

The audience is the key thing. But, the artist cannot compromise his own subjective vision.

This reminds me of an interview I once read with Cameron. It was promotion for the release of Aliens, and he said that he had just made the movie he always wanted to see when he was 13 years old, when he was watching bad science fiction flicks with poor effects, back in the day.

I remember thinking, what a nerd! Why not try to make the movie you would like to see, right now, as an adult? Why make movies for 13 year olds, specifically?

There is an intimate connection between the audience and the artist's own subjective standards. The subjective standards come from society, and now he is feeding this subjectivity back into society, by way of his art. As the process proceeds, there are mutations. Spielberg feeds back bad mutations, Kubrick, good ones.

[Quark]

Whether the artist makes to earn, express, or please, it is art. The vocabulary you used to describe often thought opinions represent the thinkers' own insecurities and directives. If I don't appreciate art for it's substance, I don't appreciate it, regardless of it's commercial success. Nor do I think I have any right to the creative direction of an artist.

[JimmyNic]

In my opinion, art should be for a reason other than money. Someone can make money and still be an artist, but there's a thin line between that and having it become a career.

On top of that, there's really something to the "Do something just to do something" idea. I don't necessarily think art needs an elaborate vision, or a large audience, to be positive (assuming one wants their work to be "positive").

Is there something wrong with deliberately setting out to have a career in something? Surely it's to the benefit of the art if the artist can afford to work on it 24/7?

I do agree that art for the sake of art is very worthwhile, regardless of the results.

I think some of these accusations are from the underground crowd that may like a band because it's good but also because other people haven't heard of the band. Some people like to think they are the discoverer of a rare gem and they don't like it when soccer moms are walking around wearing that very same gem.

It's weird how possessive people get about art. Bands seem to influence the worst examples of this, but there are cult films, books and video games that do the same.

On the other hand I think when things go commercial they tend to shift in direction from when they were part of the niche market. I think any kid who dreamed of video games being mainstream would be slightly disappointed by what happened when it did. It seems to me that most hit titles in any field tend to be pretty middle of the road and uninteresting for a genuine enthusiast.

Naw. Art is primarily to entertain and stuff that tries to hard to package a challenge with that entertainment can turn into crap pretty quick. There's something to be said for music that compels millions of people to move their bodies, even if the message of the music is simply "I'm sexy and I know it" (which my four-year-old walks around the house saying).

Lol'd at that mental image. But yeah making art just to entertain people is just as valid as to convey a message imo. But it's nice if you can do both.

I consider most art, whether it be painting, music or writing, to be an expression of something in the artist's mind that is best expressed in the art-form they choose. If it resonates with others it may become popular and commercially viable. But I don't get the impression that most artists start out to be commercially successful. They start out wanting to express a thought or emotion that they can only express through their art. The rest comes later if at all.

I think most kids pick up a guitar/video camera/notebook just wanting to express themselves. But I also think most people who are commercially successful fully intended to be so. Most people want their stuff to sell and be celebrated of course, but not everyone is willing to do what it takes to make that happen. And even those who do are not always rewarded. But those who don't very rarely achieve the same success.

The point is, if you feel passionate about something, make that part of your artistic vision. If you're not feeling it, don't bother doing it. And don't emphasize making things that exist already. They exist already.

I think all artists start off creating very derivative pieces of work. As they go on they tend to become more original, either through incorporating a wider variety of influences or experimenting and pushing stuff forward. I think artists who are just repeating the past are a waste of time, but imitation breeds creativity in the long run.

Find common ground with an audience, but don't let that define you.
General communication teaches us this lesson; Smalltalk is a part of conversation, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Common ground makes both the audience and the artist happy. But the artist still needs to step out of the audience's comfort zone.

I wouldn't say that Kubrick was necessarily in it for the money. He was an artist, and as an artist, he wanted his works to be well received. He seems to me to have been more concerned with his popular reception than he was with the response of the critics. Critical reception of 2001 was mixed, but vast swaths of the public ate it up. Just as Kubrick intended.

I don't know about Kubrick but I think there are definitely artists who see money as a symbol of recognition and achievement. And judging from what you've written it seems like Kubrick wanted recognition, or at least wanted connection. I think the essence of art is for connection, and what infuriates people is when they think that connection is motivated solely by profit.

Whether the artist makes to earn, express, or please, it is art. The vocabulary you used to describe often thought opinions represent the thinkers' own insecurities and directives. If I don't appreciate art for it's substance, I don't appreciate it, regardless of it's commercial success. Nor do I think I have any right to the creative direction of an artist.

It's weird that audiences feel possessive of their favourite artists. To the extent that if a band goes in a new direction with an album many bemoan the change and demand they play the old tunes.

[Strawman]

I don't know about Kubrick but I think there are definitely artists who see money as a symbol of recognition and achievement. And judging from what you've written it seems like Kubrick wanted recognition, or at least wanted connection. I think the essence of art is for connection, and what infuriates people is when they think that connection is motivated solely by profit.

Even the worst directors, like Spielberg, are not motivated purely by profit. Spielberg does not challenge his audience in any way, and instead constantly tries to sucks up. His movies are massively popular and tend to make millions, but I don't think even he is primarily driven by the profit motive.

To understand Spielberg, you have to read his bio. Even now he is an incredibly nerdy looking Jew, but when he was 13 years old he looked even worse. He was a constant subject of ridicule and abuse in the hallways and playgrounds, especially because he always lived in gentile neighborhoods growing up, and would have stuck out as only one of a handful of Jews (if not the only one).

Now, his response to this ridicule and abuse is the interesting thing. Other people would have handled the problem differently, but Spielberg, as the product of a broken home, was also crippled by the typical baby-boomer daddy-complex. In other words, he was constantly sucking up and seeking the approval of an absent father. And so, this was his response: he started making movies. That was how he diffused the bully situation. He would often recruit the same, exact bullies who were his tormentors to be extras and schlep around equipment for his movie projects. To this day, we can see the effect. Spielberg is always sucking up to the gentiles.

The grossest thing about Spielberg is that he openly seeks awards. You could almost see his fragile, boomer ego collapse when he got passed over for The Color Purple at the Oscars, as if he was thinking, "What do you gentiles want from me? A movie about slave women with Oprah! Well, I'll do you one better. I'll make a holocaust movie, and then you'll have to give me an Oscar."

And he got his Oscar. This is the behavior of an emotional cripple. After all of those hit movies (some of his artistry is undeniable), he still felt inadequate. "Why won't they recognize my greatness?" He can't just look back over his corpus of work and be pleased; it's like he needs the award to prove to himself that he actually is a good director.

The really good directors do not court awards like this. Kubrick never won a best director Oscar, nor did he need one. He was satisfied with the popular reception of his movies, and the international reputation that they garnered. He was ahead of his time, and knew it. He did not need awards to prop up his ego, like Spielberg.

And so, in conclusion, all artists seek recognition. But, what kind of recognition, and on what terms?

[grandpa]

Is there something wrong with deliberately setting out to have
a career in something?
Surely it's to the benefit of the art if the
artist can afford to work on it 24/7?
I do agree that art for the sake of art
is very worthwhile, regardless of the results.

The "career" aspect is all that some people know, it seems. Then again, I have to admit I'm a results-driven guy. I don't necessarily care if inspiration is brought about by "god," fame or money, if it is something I really happen to like. So I'm not saying anything is written in stone. I'm just stating my own personal pereference, or ideal, about what art should be about.

I'm not trying to be holier than thou. I actually sell portraits for money -- sort of to justify "crap for arts sake..." I do like doing portraits, and other art stuff, but I've never liked having to sell it.

My personal compromise is to sell art for dirt cheap (usually between $25 and $50). I think people should be able to enjoy art without spending a bucket load of cash.

I think all artists start off creating very derivative pieces
of work.
As they go on they tend to become more original,
either through incorporating a wider variety of influences or experimenting
and pushing stuff forward.
I think artists who are just repeating the past are
a waste of time, but imitation breeds creativity in the
long run.

Owning an idea is basically a fool's paradise. It can certainly be nice to receive credit for something, and it's not unreasonable to want to be credited. However, things can easily get out of hand. In a way, we've see this issue with Ron Paul's newsletter controversy (which you've probably heard of).

More generally, it's true that material labeled "NEW STUFF!" often isn't so new after all. I'm less hostile to unoriginal stuff than I used to be. In some ways, it's just good to hear someone being taken seriously, even if it's not someone I like. It's proof that, at the very least, art -- or something like it -- can still impact people. We have yet to let go of it. I just wish people weren't so trendy and so afraid to be themselves.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.
Common ground makes both the audience and the artist happy.
But the artist still needs to step out of the
audience's comfort zone.

Nonetheless, a lot of people will try to please their audiences, just like some go out of their way to be predictable in their need to "shock" people, make them laugh, make them think a certain way, etc.

I do recommend "Exit through the gift shop." Be sure to check it out, if you can. You can really see this question come to life. It also proves that one who is not familiar with an artform can become very, very familiar with it, and actually make some big bucks off it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Even the worst directors, like Spielberg, are not motivated purely
by profit.
Spielberg does not challenge his audience in any way, and
instead constantly tries to sucks up.

If "guaranteed profits" were not written in the contract somewhere, I don't think so many "Spielbergesque" films would be produced.

I can't say "You are way off on this
one," but I don't think Spielberg is one of the worst directors.

Grandpa h.

[Strawman]

Spielberg sucks. If you had to have a dictionary illustration for the word "sell-out," then a picture of Spielberg would be somewhat appropriate, except for this one thing: how can you sell what you don't have? Spielberg never had anything to sell out in the first place.

His most interesting early efforts, like Duel, despite all of their craftsmanship and charm, are somewhat childish. He can't help but add this effect: when the faceless psychotic trucker who tortures Dennis Weaver finally crashes his truck, as the truck falls over the ridge, there is a distinct noise on the soundtrack, like the roar of an animal. This is classic Spielberg. His childish anthropomorphisms are truly disgusting.

I really hate Spielberg. I think that this one little twerp, and all of his followers, have done more substantial damage to our nation than a thousand Muslim terrorists could ever dream of. Bin Laden only attacks our military and financial well being, whereas Spielberg attacks our basic spiritual foundations.