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

[sen_no_ongaku]

Proposal: Art should be created without the expectation of material compensation.

True or false?

Commonplace attitude or not?



[EDIT: This is not intended to imply that something created for with such an expectation cannot be art, though I may propose that sometime later.]

Comments

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

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.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I would say, though, that there is a spectrum of commercialism. Is a great song made somehow less great when featured in an ad? Does an orchestra reduce its worth by performing an arrangement of Bohemian Rhapsody? (Well, this one certainly did...but was it inevitable?).

Hell, I imagine even the most uncomprimising bands we both dig have an expectation of being paid for their efforts...though they may not necessarily make their music for the purpose of being paid.

When does something get too commercial?

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

Is a great song made somehow less great when featured in an ad?
No! Writing a song to use it in an ad make it less worthy, but having it picked up later - recognized for what it is - does not. The best art affects us on as many levels as possible, so it's inevitable that some of it will be adopted by the masses, including via commercials. The problem is art that aims only for surface appeal.