Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorliquidcow
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2008
     (2132.21)
    This stems from something I said about the new NIN album in the other thread. The point I was making was less about money itself than it was about meeting your audience's expectations (of quality that is, I don't mean giving them what they want necessarily). If I were putting on a play, and it was free, then I'd still try and make it a good production, but I'd expect people not to be so bothered about it's shortcomings considering they're seeing it for nothing. In fact I think they're likely to have lower expectations because it's free. When you start charging a fair bit for tickets, you then feel that you have to justify that, and that people have certain expectations of quality. It's not the motivation of receiving a cash reward at the end, it's the feeling that you are obliged to produce something of professional quality. That doesn't mean that the motivation behind putting on a play in the first place is money, and it doesn't mean that you care more or less about how good it is because of money.

    Money always has some kind of influence on art, whether it's because the art is intended to make money, or because money limits what you can do, or for some other reason less or more direct than that. Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint that ceiling, Dostoevsky was paid by the page, but so what?

    The main problem here though, is the definition of 'good' and 'bad' 'art'.
  1.  (2132.22)
    I've found that few people create art for the sole purpose of pleasing themselves. Those that do are a blessed sort, to be certain, and, in a sense, pure. But even they can't help but enjoy the rewards that come from showcasing their talents, be it praise, money, or some combination of the two.

    Does it hurt the art? It could, but I've had the pleasure of meeting plenty of writers and artists that love their art and get paid for doing what they love, without making too many concessions to "The Man." It's inspirational.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLokiZero
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2008
     (2132.23)
    I draw and paint and stuff because I have a story to tell, and I don't feel like I'm even close, quality wise, to telling that story the way I want to tell it. THAT is the only thing I care about. I'm probably never going to see a dime out of the finished product, but I have this story that needs to get out, and I'm just trying to push myself to get there.
    • CommentAuthorAngela Hunt
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2008 edited
     (2132.24)
    I write because the voices in my head won't shut up.

    I take photographs because I'm blessed with a physical and real live Muse who keeps calling me up and saying, "Hey, what if we do pictures about..."

    I paint when I can't write or take photographs.

    And I wish I could make a total living from just doing those three things, but money isn't why I do them. I can't NOT do them. It's a fucking disease, to tell the damn truth.

    I've tried to sell out. It never works out. So I work the jobby jobs and keep making the art. The alternative is to frankly go mad and I'm already a little there. No need to go further off the deep end, know what I'm saying?

    And in the meantime, I'll never give up the dream and the goal of one day working full time as a three-fold artist. Just right now, I can't think about the money. Or I'll start stabbing people randomly on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood...
  2.  (2132.25)
    I see art as a way to speak without speaking. To get an idea across without having to get literal/didactic/pretentious (see Requiem For A Dream for what I see as an example of how to do it wrong) and let people get what and how much they want out of it. I also like the idea of entertaining the hell out of people, without conforming to some abstract standards, other than what I think is cool. Can't always be done, but its what I'm aiming for. With regards to money-- Essential for the art to continue? No. Essential for me? Quite possibly, because if I have to listen to assholes asking if their entitled to their money back because their shoes don't fit for the rest of my days, I just might go on that gas powered Armalite rampage Ed Norton was talking about.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPyD
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2008
     (2132.26)
    Art is a way to make sense of the world whether that sense appears in the work or just in the head of the person doing it.

    Every so often I wonder if I am where I am due to fear of being a starving artist but ultiamtely come to the conclusion that its most likely laziness.
    •  
      CommentAuthorzoem
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2008
     (2132.27)
    @ rickiep00h

    To me, art is shouting into the void without an observer. Sometimes I like shouting into the void - sometimes I make things that I know that only a mother could love. Other times I try to make things I think would be "accessible" - those are often my worst failures.

    There's plenty beauty to go around in the world, I think. Anyone who wants to make some should do so with abandon. And those who can make a buck at it - good for you. The trick is to remember why you did it in the first place.