Post #149495 by Tiki-bot on Sun, Mar 27, 2005 10:12 AM

You know how it's not like me to state strong opinions here :wink:, but this on or off the "artistic roll call" is complete nonsense. There seems to be a belief, among non-artists and artists alike, that all art should aspire to be free of any and all commercialism.

All kinds of artists - painters, musicians, graffiti painters, sand-castle builders - all of their art exists within a world of commerce to some degree or other, whether they admit it or not. I am a commercial artist myself, and coworkers often dream of being "pure" artists, while at the same time understanding that no such thing exists. We all dream of getting rich and staying at home all day creating our self-indulgent artistic masterpieces, but the world already has a Jeff Koons.

A former co-worker left the video game biz to do landscape painting full time. It sounded like a dream to a lot of us, but we all knew the reality, and so did he. He gave up answering to project leaders and production managers for answering to his personal manager, gallery owners, and the fickle art-buying public. His daily work may be more artistically and emotionally satisfying, but all the same business issues still exist. He needs to do paintings (and a LOT of them) that people want to buy or he doesn't eat. Bam! He's a commercial artist again!

Who are we to be the gate-keepers of what level of commercial involvement is acceptable? Sure, you get to make up your own minds about who's crossed the line into "sell-out" territory, but it seems unfair to equal want of commercial success with a lack of honest artistic intent or ability (though I agree it doesn't appear that way in the mainstream entertainment media).

PS: Fijifingers - there....certianly.....are...a...lot...of...gaps...in...your...message...