Art = Profit?

[oysterbaggage]

Do you think that art, like everything, has deviated from its original purpose through greed and dishonesty, is going to be renewed when a reaction arrives?

In terms of music, MP3 could potentially kill off the globalised merger cash-led non-music and its high-profile 'artists' who sell abnormal amounts of safe third rate, tenth generation patronising crap to harmless, thoughtless media produced idiots. Even if it doesn't slaughter the middleman, it could redress the balance of American band worship in the UK [and, I'm sure, many other countries] therefore create new localised scenes and original sounds.

Artists want more. Greed affected the vision of purity and then
their art. There are plenty of original artists without recognition. Emin and other such blaggers deserve their Pounds and Dollars, they're swindling [the] idiots. Nobody really seems to complain that Big Brother is a pile of rotting shit show, those with half a mind ignore and seek their own entertainment.

Art is now too far into the commodity zone. We do not need the label 'artist', as we are ALL capable of varying degrees of creativity and expression, as with the term 'musician'.

Perhaps Emin's work reminds of that fact.

 

[tablariddim]

There is always a motivating factor.

And in this life.. it's money! Art for arts sake is great and desirable, but think about it, hasn't most, if not all the art you've ever been exposed to, come from a commercial endeavour? Zappa was phenomenal, but you bought his records--a million people made some wedge from his art. If he wasn't a part of the money machine you would probably have never ever heard of him. And this is the stark reality with all art that is accessible.

You're right when you say that there's a gazillion artists out there hidden away in their bedrooms, tinkling, brushing and stomping their chops, I'm one of them, but how are we going to hear their/see their/touch their/read their art, if it doesn't move downstairs and out the door?

Greed is the root of all evil as we are all told, but without a certain modicum of greed, no one is going to bother with getting all this art out to the public (everybody needs money to live and artists, especially, need lots of dough if theyre gonna spend all their time perfecting and financing their craft). So we get offered a lot of crap in the process, and you know what? Most people LIKE crap. Most people LOVE crap but we are offered gems also, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

 

[Doane McTork]

The technology of media has helped open the world to art. From Gutenberg's press to the internet, we have been enlightened and educated by countless artists - whether in print or picture or music, or even of picture of art uncapturable as yet, ie. sculpture.

Think back to the Renaissance Art age. Beautiful work but most commissioned by church to propogate its beliefs. So, they had one buyer. They concentrated on what they were told to paint (or sculpt). Michaelangelo became so good he bucked that system but, if most wanted to eat or have a roof over their head, they were painting some Christian image.

There were a few rich families that had portraits made of them in their finest garb but to the masses there was little art except for new farming inventions.

So, money is not bad. It is the most easily tradable commodity. Sure beats getting paid in tea bags or buckets of compost. Also, without money there would be little exposure of art. It would be for personal reasons and a 'real' job would remove time from the passion of creating.

The sad reality is that money changes people. And that the balance of motivation sometimes takes over the original impetus - the fountainhead of expression.