sen_no_ongaku | Let's see if this gets any play...

I have such a problem with the definition of the word "art" I'm not sure I can handle this, but my core answer is false. Money is required to sustain life. Time is required to earn money. There are people who are such talented artists that society is better if they spend all their time producting art, instead of working at McDs to feed themselves and making art in their spare times. So seperating art from money only works if you have artists who are independently wealthy, or if the art can be accomplished in spare time.

That said, deciding that you are an artist does not mean that society owes you a right to make a living solely creating whatever your artistic expression is. If you make art no one wants or enjoys, it may still be art (another discussion) but society is under no obligation to fund your pursuit of it full time.

The exchange of money for art can be seen as society valuing the contribution of the art. Society can be dumb, and wrong, but has the right to make decisions about what it will and will not support.

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.

I, on the other hand, get two words into your proposal before I have trouble. What do you mean by 'should'?

I believe that some art is created without the expectation of material compensation. All of the art generated by my fine wife

cute_fuzzy_evil falls into this category. There is certainly also art that is created with the strong expectation of material compensation. Most mainstream pop albums, for instance.

But what do we mean by should? Is art that is made without this expectation more valid, genuine, or personal? Do you imply that perhaps art that is ceated with materialistic gains in mind is not art at all? Is the value of the art itself somehow dependent on the intentions of its creator?

This entire enterprise seems by far not PoMo enough for you,

sen_no_ongaku. I'd expect you to say that once the art is out there, its genesis is of little import.

Maybe there's another angle here that you're trying to get at, intentionally or otherwise. There is certainly an attitude among certain artists that if you produce marketable art that you are doing something wrong; that art that is pleasing to enough people to earn you money isn't new, experimental, or edgy enough to be worthwhile. Adherents to this philosophy would likely agree, for the reason that any artist who produces art he expects to bring him wealth is either not producing art that is worth their time, or out of touch with reality.

I agree, but deserving artists should be rewarded ultimately. This attitude stems in part from a distaste/abhorrence of blatantly commercial "art" like Thomas Kinkaid and the Boston Pops.

Interesting question. Interesting points of view above.

Hm. I'm going to agree with one commenter who was confused by the word "should."

I don't think that paying an artist necessarily makes their art worse, but it's been known to happen; mainstream writers who get paid to churn out romance or mystery novels, for example, often produce something that couldn't be called "art" in the same way that some literary novels can; John Updike creates literary novels, but the volume he is called upon to create (in order to be paid) negatively affects their quality.

But being paid to produce art certainly increases the quality of life of the artist, and as an artist myself, I definitely would like it if I could make a living at it. The trouble seems to come in when an artist has to create more than he has in him to create in a short span of time, in order to make that money. Alternately, the trouble might be said to come in when the struggle and suffering required to create the art is lessened by the compensation earned for it, and therefore either 1. the inspiration for the art is lessened, 2. the artist is no longer creating out of pure need to create/enjoyment of creation, but rather for monetary gain, or 3. both.

But your question was about whether one *should* create art without expectation of material compensation.

I think that artists who produce great work deserve to be paid, and it's a travesty that so many of them are not. But if nobody produced art without the expectation of material compensation, I don't think we'd have any art. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that being paid always ruins art, I do believe that the truest/best art comes not from the hope of making a living at it, but from the sheer need to create. If you get paid, it's a bonus.

At the same time, I don't think that we value our artists enough in society, and I don't like the romanticization of the "starving artist" notion which, I think, keeps artists societally devalued.

As the statement stands, false. This is clear to me when I look at the contrapositive (or is it converse?): Everything created with an expectation of material compensation should not be art. IMO, everything one does/creates should be approached as art, regardless of material compensation.

However, reading through the comments, I think the focus is more on the compensation and expectation side than the art side. There are two aspects I see to this, what is and what ought be.

In the 'what is' category, I think art, like any other endeavor in this day and age, should be created with an awareness of the market forces in play. The artist should expect no material compensation if they're creating something for which there is no demonstrable demand. This is balanced against the demand generation activites of the artist (marketing, networking, etc.) and the artists belief in the worth of their product contrary to the current market indicators (i.e. people don't yet know that they need it, but they will demand it as soon as they become aware of it). The proposal modification for this would be 'Art should be created with an appropriate expectation of material compensation (whether high, low, or non-existent).'

In the 'what ought be' category, I think art should be compensated materially. How one goes about this is a very tricky endeavor. Were I emperor of the universe, I would give every one (i.e. all who filed their taxes) a yearly stipend that had to be spent on Art. While the logistics of administering and auditing such a thing would be complicated, it would not be impossible.

Well, I don't have time to read everyone else's comments. But I cry false. You can't expect to get decent art unless you give people time and means to create it. That involves food and rent.

Also, people often appreciate things more when they pay for them.

I want to argue about this, but I want to do it in person. Happily, that coincides with a general desire to hang out with you and your ilk (to the extent that you can be correctly described as a person with "ilk"), who I haven't seen in quite some time somehow. Got some time..let's see... mid to late next week/weekend following that?

no subject

From Balsamic Dragon (hi there!)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject