I had an interesting debate the other day - one I've had in the past several times, and one that I find I'm constantly changing sides on. I know artists, a couple of them, who are quite talented, but simply unable to make a living at it because of how they view the media they are gifted in.
Their problem, if it is indeed a "problem", is this: they hold art - the process and result of their creativity and patience - in such sacred regard that once a piece is done, so much of their personality, so much of their soul, so much of their "selves" went into its creation that to simply sell it seems to them like a sort of prostitution, some sort of profanity. I suppose that in a way they view their pieces the way someone might view their children, and I guess the comparison between patiently raising a child and carefully making a clay teapot is more than superficial.
The counter-argument I have used myself goes something like this: it is really all how the artist views him- or herself, and the general attitude that many artists seem to share about money, which is negative, for he most part. Many artists will divide the world in twain, partisianizing humanity into materialists and sensualists. They view the majority of humanity as being interested in chasing profits and financial advantage, and they view the dollars that these people are endlessly chasing as dirty by association.
Gone are the days of patrons who will lavish artists with the means to spend all their days creating art without having to worry where their next meal is coming from. Some artists I have spoken with get a dreamy look in their eyes when referring to the Renaissance era, conveniently ignoring the fact that often the artists from this period they admire so much often had little choice as to what they would be painting or sculpting. Other artists take an opposite tack, romanticizing the lives of the starving artists who eschewed worldly comfort for the sake of remaining true to their artistic vision. I think both of these viewpoints are mistaken, both in the way they unquestioningly accept the fact that money is bad, and in the way they view the nature of the transaction.
First, money is neither good nor bad. It is an inanimate object (one it took a certain amount of artistic talent to design and mint, I might add); it is what money is used for, as well as what one does to obtain it, that is either good or bad - which leads to my second point: I would suggest that instead of looking at the selling of a painting or sculpture or whatever as a mere financial exchange, take the viewpoint that you are exchanging your work that will bring happiness to other people for a small donation to enable you the security to continue the work of making the world a better place.
Of course, and underlying (and fastidiously ignored) secondary argument of the artist who will not sell their work is the artist's fear of rejection or failure, with which I can certainly sympathize. It takes a very real bravery to put your soul into a work and then to place it out in the world for all to see. And judge. And criticize. I think all artists, hell, anyone, can relate to this. Artists will usually form communities to offer support to each other is the face of this legitimate insecurity, but all too often these groups will devolve into dens of bitterness that legitimize the fear rather than combat it.
Well, these are my half-formed thoughts on the subject. I just kind of wanted to get them down to help me figure out all sides concerned. Thanks for everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment