The hard part for us artists is deciding whether or not to embrace commercialism. Do we allow our work to be hyped and exploited by a market that's simply hungry for the next new thing? Do we participate in a system that turns high art into low art so it's better suited for mass consumption? Of course, when an artist goes commercial, he makes a mockery of his status as an outsider and free thinker. He buys into the crass and shallow values art should transcend. He trades the integrity of his art for riches and fame.
I think you're treating artistic success and commercial success as two mutually exclusive concepts. More often than not, commercial success only occurs for new artists because of some unique aspect visible in their work.
I suppose that depends on what you define artistic success as. To me, it is whenever I successfully achieve the vision I had in my head and get it down in a medium. Pride and fulfilment in my work is number one for me. Compromising my work in order to advertise for something I think is a backwards step.
I've given much thought to whether the two can co-exist. For example, whether you can design graphic advertising for Nike based on their protocol and target market (while having no interest in Nike or their products and no respect for the way they increase profit margins by producing their sneakers in Chinese sweatshops.) And then whether in your own time you can continue with your own individual work. Finding time for both would be hard and you may find yourself thinking completely differently about art when you start producing it as a form of advertising or as a sellable product.
I think the financially successful artists find a way to work independently and not compromise their own unique vision or style. Let their work sell itself or create their own company/product around it. I don't doubt there would be artists out there though which would be happy to use their skills for whatever financial gain they can achieve.
I kind of agree and disagree with your statement "More often than not, commercial success only occurs for new artists because of some unique aspect visible in their work."
I think some artists can adapt their work to what they know is in vogue in order to make it a success, taking elements from other influences to make it recognizable and marketable.
Truly unique art has often come misunderstood at it's time of production and hasn't been successful at all, because it challenges people and goes against norm. Citizen Kane by Orson Welles comes to mind. It's regarded as one of the greatest films of all time now, and it is an artistic triumph, years ahead of its time of production. It flopped at the box office. Same could be said for Van Gogh who never sold a painting in his lifetime.
I only have one question for you, and I mean no disrespect. Would you rather work in your chosen field of art to support yourself, or McDonald's to support your art?
Please, I am NOT trying to piss you off or demean you in any way.
I really should have enclosed that last comment in quotation marks and paid credit to the author, I stole that off Bill Watterson; it derives from one of his Calvin and Hobbes comic strips. Just as a side note, I left out a bit at the end which says
"Oh, what the heck. I'll do it. That wasn't so hard."
I really like that quote, I can relate to it. Embracing commercialism is something I've struggled with for most of my life. That quote seems to sum it up well for me. I suppose I don't really fit into the capitalist system. I know ideology doesn't put food on the table, and y'kno its like they say
"If you're not a rebel by the time you're 20 you've got no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by 30 you've got no brains."
To answer your question, I suppose I would work at McDonalds if it meant staying true to myself and my values and not compromising the integrity of my work.
It's not much different from what I do now to support my art, I work in retail and make money on the side doing freelance art/design projects for people. You can successfully operate outside of the commercial machine. I think it keeps me grounded, realistic and keeps my art pure to myself.
I draw a lot of irreverent comic strips, and I remember going for a job as a cartoonist for a street press youth magazine and upon viewing my art, they said they liked it but that my work was too risqué and not suitable for their publication. They offered me a chance to get published in their magazine if I worked within their parameters, of what was the style and context of the graphics that they were going for in their magazine, which was alien to me and reeked of a cheap form of advertising.
I could not subject myself to that because I wouldn't be taking any pride in that work, sure it would be drawn by me but it wouldn't be me. It'd be this detachment from all that I value in my art and at the end of the day if your name is on it it's a representation of yourself and you can easily lose sight of yourself and why you draw art in the first place.
At the end of the day I'm happy with the freedom it gives me and not being a part of a consumerist machine. I have my work out there and the people who have given me freelance design work to do have chosen me with the knowledge and interest in my style and vision.
I'm an artist, I'm chasing my dream to work as an artist
← View full post
The hard part for us artists is deciding whether or not to embrace commercialism. Do we allow our work to be hyped and exploited by a market that's simply hungry for the next new thing? Do we participate in a system that turns high art into low art so it's better suited for mass consumption? Of course, when an artist goes commercial, he makes a mockery of his status as an outsider and free thinker. He buys into the crass and shallow values art should transcend. He trades the integrity of his art for riches and fame.
--
Incomplet
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
thegypsysailor
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think you're treating artistic success and commercial success as two mutually exclusive concepts. More often than not, commercial success only occurs for new artists because of some unique aspect visible in their work.
--
linchpin
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suppose that depends on what you define artistic success as. To me, it is whenever I successfully achieve the vision I had in my head and get it down in a medium. Pride and fulfilment in my work is number one for me. Compromising my work in order to advertise for something I think is a backwards step.
I've given much thought to whether the two can co-exist. For example, whether you can design graphic advertising for Nike based on their protocol and target market (while having no interest in Nike or their products and no respect for the way they increase profit margins by producing their sneakers in Chinese sweatshops.) And then whether in your own time you can continue with your own individual work. Finding time for both would be hard and you may find yourself thinking completely differently about art when you start producing it as a form of advertising or as a sellable product.
I think the financially successful artists find a way to work independently and not compromise their own unique vision or style. Let their work sell itself or create their own company/product around it. I don't doubt there would be artists out there though which would be happy to use their skills for whatever financial gain they can achieve.
I kind of agree and disagree with your statement "More often than not, commercial success only occurs for new artists because of some unique aspect visible in their work."
I think some artists can adapt their work to what they know is in vogue in order to make it a success, taking elements from other influences to make it recognizable and marketable.
Truly unique art has often come misunderstood at it's time of production and hasn't been successful at all, because it challenges people and goes against norm. Citizen Kane by Orson Welles comes to mind. It's regarded as one of the greatest films of all time now, and it is an artistic triumph, years ahead of its time of production. It flopped at the box office. Same could be said for Van Gogh who never sold a painting in his lifetime.
I only have one question for you, and I mean no disrespect. Would you rather work in your chosen field of art to support yourself, or McDonald's to support your art?
Please, I am NOT trying to piss you off or demean you in any way.
--
linchpin
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I really should have enclosed that last comment in quotation marks and paid credit to the author, I stole that off Bill Watterson; it derives from one of his Calvin and Hobbes comic strips. Just as a side note, I left out a bit at the end which says
"Oh, what the heck. I'll do it. That wasn't so hard."
I really like that quote, I can relate to it. Embracing commercialism is something I've struggled with for most of my life. That quote seems to sum it up well for me. I suppose I don't really fit into the capitalist system. I know ideology doesn't put food on the table, and y'kno its like they say
"If you're not a rebel by the time you're 20 you've got no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by 30 you've got no brains."
To answer your question, I suppose I would work at McDonalds if it meant staying true to myself and my values and not compromising the integrity of my work.
It's not much different from what I do now to support my art, I work in retail and make money on the side doing freelance art/design projects for people. You can successfully operate outside of the commercial machine. I think it keeps me grounded, realistic and keeps my art pure to myself.
I draw a lot of irreverent comic strips, and I remember going for a job as a cartoonist for a street press youth magazine and upon viewing my art, they said they liked it but that my work was too risqué and not suitable for their publication. They offered me a chance to get published in their magazine if I worked within their parameters, of what was the style and context of the graphics that they were going for in their magazine, which was alien to me and reeked of a cheap form of advertising.
I could not subject myself to that because I wouldn't be taking any pride in that work, sure it would be drawn by me but it wouldn't be me. It'd be this detachment from all that I value in my art and at the end of the day if your name is on it it's a representation of yourself and you can easily lose sight of yourself and why you draw art in the first place.
At the end of the day I'm happy with the freedom it gives me and not being a part of a consumerist machine. I have my work out there and the people who have given me freelance design work to do have chosen me with the knowledge and interest in my style and vision.
--
thegypsysailor
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Fair enough.