Art is a big idea. I have to break it down into smaller ideas to really get a handle on it. Note that these ideas overlap.
Art that stretches the boundaries of what can be done by humanity: for example, certain kinds of music, dance, sculpture (often described as "fine art") usually needs to be compensated, because it takes a lifetime of work to hone the skills required to create such art.
Art that is meant to convey an important idea, for example certain kinds of literature, poetry, drama, often suffers from material compensation. The idea itself is the driving force of such art and, if shared with material compensation, it tends to be less powerful. Plus, this kind of art requires more passion and less finely honed skill.
Art that is designed mostly to entertain, for example, movies and television, not only _requires_ material compensation, but in a capitalist society (in theory), the more reliant upon material compensation directly from consumers, the better the art.
Art that is a performance, usually transient, in which the performers get as much out of the art as the audience (if indeed there are any), for example, jam sessions, some theater, storytelling, seems to suffer from material compensation, because the artist no longer needs to draw satisfaction solely from the performance.
As far as commonplace attitudes, I think that most people have not given significant thought to what art _should_ be, nor do I personally think it is an area that requires _rules_. People refer to an artist as "selling out", meaning accepting money in order to lower their artistic standards and appeal to a wider audience, but I think that is largely confined to the popular music industry and is a direct result of the major problems in that industry right now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
From Balsamic Dragon (hi there!)
Date: 2005-05-10 05:06 pm (UTC)Art that stretches the boundaries of what can be done by humanity: for example, certain kinds of music, dance, sculpture (often described as "fine art") usually needs to be compensated, because it takes a lifetime of work to hone the skills required to create such art.
Art that is meant to convey an important idea, for example certain kinds of literature, poetry, drama, often suffers from material compensation. The idea itself is the driving force of such art and, if shared with material compensation, it tends to be less powerful. Plus, this kind of art requires more passion and less finely honed skill.
Art that is designed mostly to entertain, for example, movies and television, not only _requires_ material compensation, but in a capitalist society (in theory), the more reliant upon material compensation directly from consumers, the better the art.
Art that is a performance, usually transient, in which the performers get as much out of the art as the audience (if indeed there are any), for example, jam sessions, some theater, storytelling, seems to suffer from material compensation, because the artist no longer needs to draw satisfaction solely from the performance.
As far as commonplace attitudes, I think that most people have not given significant thought to what art _should_ be, nor do I personally think it is an area that requires _rules_. People refer to an artist as "selling out", meaning accepting money in order to lower their artistic standards and appeal to a wider audience, but I think that is largely confined to the popular music industry and is a direct result of the major problems in that industry right now.