Artistic Integrity

[scalyblue]

I am embroiled in a debate with other authors over what comprises artistic integrity, and if 'selling out' (working with monetary gain as a motivation) compromises that.

Is the concept of integrity, especially artistic integrity, a subjective thing? What comprises it? What could compromise it?

 

[Juuso]

I think whatever you're doing is all about feeling or whatever but at the same time artists, musicians, writers etc evolve and move on and too much of the time this is misconstrued as selling out.
I think it is subjective as in a lot of it is subconsciously done because people want enough money to not have to be worrying about costs all the time.

But yeah, simply, it does exist but most people don't notice it when they see it and do notice it when it isn't there.

 

[xman]

Getting paid is not a failure of artistic integrity. That includes patron dollars at the door as well as corporate sponsorship. Getting paid to sing corporate jingles instead of your own work is selling out, but it should be mentioned that this is an acceptable means of paying your bills as an artist.

X

 

[scalyblue]

That seems to be the consensus save for one person, who is as against these 'sellouts' as much as a creationist is against fossils...I guess you find them in every walk of life, I'd copy/paste the exact posts but I'm obliged not to by copyright x.x

What I can say is one of the arguments being used is about how authors write 'garbage' when they're motivated by money and great stuff when they're motivated by love for the work...but why can't you love the work and be motivated by money at the same time?

I see this frequently in music too.

 

[xman]

... one of the arguments being used is about how authors write 'garbage' when they're motivated by money and great stuff when they're motivated by love for the work...

The value of art is subjective so that makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly we can't conclude that if more or even most people like the art that it is good considering what lowest common denominator dross gets pushed out. Maybe that's what they mean when they say 'garbage for money' so they likely mean that it must pass critical scrutiny of the literati to pass as 'good'.

I submit that it is not the money that makes the art bad, but the audience's demand for simply slop.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think working for money is a completely pure and noble enterprise, and there's no reason to assume that it has anything to do with artistic integrity. Of course, I also think that the term "artistic integrity" has been twisted around as a way to show disrespect for successful artists, and that it often misses the point.

You know who's got artistic integrity, above and beyond anyone I've ever seen? Michael Bay. He's a guy who has never sold out his vision for anyone.

 

[Josan]

There is NOTHING wrong with taking money for doing a good job. "Selling out" means (or rather, it should mean), changing your art in a way that goes against your own vision simply to make more money. I agree with IJoe, it's used mostly as a way to show disrespect towards succsesful artists.

 

[scalyblue]

Yeah, the more and more I'm getting into the debate on the author's board, the more it's seeming like sour grapes at seeing works they feel are 'substandard' being published when their 'perfect' works aren't x.x How much hubris is that; dan brown and stephanie meyer may be shit but people like it for a reason, even if that reason makes me very, very sad for humanity.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's a related point. From my POV, art is really a communication between the artist and the audience. The artist is supposed to express something to the audience. People who are successful at communicating through art tend to be able to make money at it. There's nothing "selling out" about creating art that other people can actually relate to. If you're only creating for yourself, is that art? Or is it just mental masturbation?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

As an on again off again artist, I think the definition of "selling out" is as subjective of the definition of art itself. I'm a trained illustrator and considered a sellout by traditional fine artists simply because I create what I'm told to create by clients rather than creating whatever I want and selling it. I can sort of see their point but what they don't seem to realize is that I still try to put in as much effort and passion into my works even if it's a commission for someone else.

And yes, creating art for yourself can be considered mental masturbation except that I usually also like to show off my work to others. Now that's a weird mental pic eh?

 

[Xulld]

So lets say an artist appeals to one group, then over time his taste changes for whatever reason (after all it is HIS art, and other people either dig it or not) well perhaps another group of people will enjoy it, and his old group will call him a sell out becuase the new group is larger and thus he makes tons of money, notoriety and fame.

I think joe's question is poignant.

Is art really art if there is no one to appreciate it? I would say YES it was always art. I mean many artists are despised all there lives, and then well after they are dead they become famous, was it not art that whole time? I myself would say yes, it was always art, even if no one EVER appreciated it.

Art IMHO is entirely subjective as far as its appreciation and recognition goes. If a painter mixes shit in a can with some alabaster paint and it somehow has meaning for even just himself, its art, perhaps crappy art (ba Dum chh) but art nonetheless.

BTW such a painter existed, and his can of shit paint sold for $50,000 . . . not something I can appreciate . . .

 

[TheFearmonger]

ok, well... I am an artist(not a job, just a hobby), and I do lanscapes, mostly. I can't honestly say I've ever "sold out" my own style just to make a buck. And, true, there are some who do, but the point is that money isn't neccesarily a crippling factor of expression. It depends on your own personal thoughts on your work. Even if you were to rush a commision to make a deadline, that isn't really selling out. Now, if you were motivated to do works simply for the monetary benefit, then you probably WOULD be, and your work would show this, as it would, most likely degrade over time, since you wouldn't have that heart put into it. Look at your own work, and your own self. Selling out isn't an empirical concept. It differs from person to person. If you aren't continuing your art simply to get money, however, I would say your integrity remains intact.

 

[scalyblue]

There's still one person arguing the point, but all of your input has been very helpful in structuring a reply. ^.^ Thanks!