Commercial vs. artistic authors

[Indian Boy]

Usually I'm a one book at a time kind of reader but lately I've been reading multiple books by multiple authors at once. By doing so I feel my awareness of commercial writing vs artistic writing has really sharpened. For example, right now I'm reading two books. "Shutter Island" by Dennis Lehane and "Outer Dark" by Cormac McCarthy. These two authors couldn't be more different. I feel like Dennis Lehane is very commercial. His writing is very simple and quick to read. And his overall story ideas and plot development are very much "hollywood". On the other hand I find Cormac McCarthy's writing is highly complex, his vocabulary is extensive, and his story ideas are so dark and disturbing that they're about as far away from anything "mainstream" as you can get. In other words, I feel like Cormac McCarthy writes how he wants to, not how writing experts tell him he should, and if you don't like his writing he doesn't seem to care.

So what are your thoughts on commercial writers vs artistic writers?

[PeterL]

I think that your differentiation isn't quite what you meant. I have not read anything by Cormac McCathy, but I know that Dennis Lehane isn't much of a writer. His plots and characters are not well uilt, and after hearing about "Shutter Island" I don't think that I will even try reading anything by him again.

I believe that good writing should be clear and lead from the beginning to the ending, and there are many writers who can';t even do that. Writers who rely on tricks and purple prose are not writing well.

[Mr.lucifer]

Artistic writers are technically commercial writers.

[cafolini]

I'm going to say something as cheap and artistic as I can. The envy of some people took them to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's why they managed to practically trash all competitions for beauty. No? Ha! Certainly not. A despicable irony on my part. They could have said that art is in the eye of the beholder with far more effectiveness. But there again, it would have caused them to trash best sellers. No? Certainly not.
Anything is art if people buy it as such. People rule. The rest is obsolete museum talk. I don't know where people come from when they confuse a culture of the past with art.
That's why we had to build dynamic museums of history, for those that are stuck in culture and can't overcome prejudices.
There has never been more art in all of history. We are not going back to a neoenlightment in that sense. Marketting is today a very fine art. If you disagree, don't assume your prejudices. Simply try to stop trends with solid, concrete arguments. But you have little of that.
Take complexity, for example. What does it have to do with art that is not complex art? Take complication, for example, different than complexity, which excels in the imaginary. What does complication have to do which is not complicated art.
And take obsolete cultures and prejudices. They are still very artistic where they belong, i.e., a museum. To try to run today's world with them is the same as committing suicide a-priori and then talking galore about it.
Anything is business and good business is artistic just as much as bad business. If you don't like this state of affairs, it is because you don't know how to overcome academics.

[Charles Darnay]

I agree that the distinction here is between good and bad writers, not "commercial" and "artistic" writers.

Commercial writers = writers (or books) that become very popular

They are not always bad writers, and they are not always writers who write simple plots with simple language. There are some very "artistic" writers who have become commercial successes.

[Drkshadow03]

I agree that the distinction here is between good and bad writers, not "commercial" and "artistic" writers.

Commercial writers = writers (or books) that become very popular

They are not always bad writers, and they are not always writers who write simple plots with simple language. There are some very "artistic" writers who have become commercial successes.

Like Cormac McCarthy. :thumbsup:

[stlukesguild]

Agreed. Popularity is no measure for or against artistic merit.

[mal4mac]

Cormac McCarthy's use of language in "Blood Meridian" is quite difficult, but nowhere near as difficult as Joyce's use of language in Ulysses. It's not so difficult as to disbar him from being a commercial success, and other of his other novels are much easier reads ("The Road" for instance.) And he is certainly "hollywood", as several films have been based on his novels. But, as with Dickens, being a commercial success does not mean a writer cannot also also be an artistic success. Also, just because a film is made by hollywoood that doesn't mean it cannot be an artistic success - so the designation "hollywood" has no merit in distinguishing good art from bad art.

[Arrowni]

So you don't think that market oriented text production is not different from non-market oriented one?

I agree that the commerciality does not oppose the notion of art directly, but it does affect the final product imo.

[kelby_lake]

All published texts are market-oriented. Why would you publish your text if you didn't want people to buy it? If they really didn't want to be commercial, they could just give out the book for free on the internet. Some writers may look more artistic than others but they all have to tow the line to get published.

[Drkshadow03]

So you don't think that market oriented text production is not different from non-market oriented one?

I agree that the commerciality does not oppose the notion of art directly, but it does affect the final product imo.

No, not really. For starters, from the publisher's side it is all market-oriented. Often what makes one book with ghosts appear in the literature section of your local bookstore and a different book with ghosts appear in the horror section has everything to do with marketing designations and which publisher ultimately decided to publish your story.

From the writer's side, there is no such thing as work that is strictly artistic or one that is strictly commercial. Anyone who enters writing with dreams of making lots of money is an idiot. It's possible to make lots of money, but it's rare. I'm in constant communication with SF, Horror, and Fantasy writers (ones that are published by major genre presses and magazines). I even know a few Romance writers. All of these writers are genuinely passionate about their work and these genres.

[mortalterror]

I've always wanted to be a sell out but I could never find anyone willing to buy.

[Emil Miller]

All published texts are market-oriented. Why would you publish your text if you didn't want people to buy it? If they really didn't want to be commercial, they could just give out the book for free on the internet. Some writers may look more artistic than others but they all have to tow the line to get published.

While this is true for some authors, there are those who publish their own work privately for the benefit of friends or acquaintances without thought of profit. The motivation for many writers is to be read rather than make money but if by chance they do make money, that's a welcome bonus. It is perfectly possible for writers to put their books up for free on the Internet but without promotion practically nobody will know of their existence.

[My2cents]

Usually I'm a one book at a time kind of reader but lately I've been reading multiple books by multiple authors at once. By doing so I feel my awareness of commercial writing vs artistic writing has really sharpened. For example, right now I'm reading two books. "Shutter Island" by Dennis Lehane and "Outer Dark" by Cormac McCarthy. These two authors couldn't be more different. I feel like Dennis Lehane is very commercial. His writing is very simple and quick to read. And his overall story ideas and plot development are very much "hollywood". On the other hand I find Cormac McCarthy's writing is highly complex, his vocabulary is extensive, and his story ideas are so dark and disturbing that they're about as far away from anything "mainstream" as you can get. In other words, I feel like Cormac McCarthy writes how he wants to, not how writing experts tell him he should, and if you don't like his writing he doesn't seem to care.

So what are your thoughts on commercial writers vs artistic writers?

I haven't read Lehane, but I've heard of him. He's been around for awhile doing what he is doing (I think) which means that he must be successful and/or very good at what he does. In a way, I can appreciate that sort of writing--a commercial enterprise with no pretense of being "art" or "literature"--much more than I ever could a gushingly acclaimed book that purports to do more than engage the reader (which is all we really are asking for the writer to do for investing our time, money, and/or energy).

I have read Cormac McCarthy, and I actually enjoyed and prefer The Road, his worst novel by many accounts, to Blood Meridian, arguably his best. Hopefully, Suttree, which I'll be reading next will top them both. I have a hunch it will.

[stlukesguild]

So you don't think that market oriented text production is not different from non-market oriented one?

I agree that the commerciality does not oppose the notion of art directly, but it does affect the final product imo.

Samuel Johnson was famously quoted as declaring, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money," although William Blake might have disagreed.

Kelby Lake-All published texts are market-oriented.

Mortal Terror-I've always wanted to be a sell out but I could never find anyone willing to buy.

Indeed!:smilielol5:

From what I recall, Shakespeare was quite successful as a playwright.

Emil Miller-While this is true for some authors, there are those who publish their own work privately for the benefit of friends or acquaintances without thought of profit.

I wouldn't say this is true of "some" authors. I'd say it's true of the majority of artists. Some independently wealthy writers may write without the least financial thought... although if we consider even the courtly writers such as Spenser, Sidney, and Raleigh we will recognize that the writing was a means of establishing one's credentials and making political connections. I agree that a great many artists involved in any art would quite likely continue to create even if they were assured that they would never earn the least dime... but would Dickens or Shakespeare have written differently if they knew they would never make the least profit? I somehow doubt it. I imagine every artist has an idea audience in his or her mind that is in many ways quite like themselves. Was Joyce writing in order to intentionally be obscure or baffle the majority of readers... or was he writing for an audience much like himself: incredibly well-read, fluent in several languages, with a love of language and word-play?

[Emil Miller]

Emil Miller-While this is true for some authors, there are those who publish their own work privately for the benefit of friends or acquaintances without thought of profit.[/COLOR]

I wouldn't say this is true of "some" authors. I'd say it's true of the majority of artists. Some independently wealthy writers may write without the least financial thought... although if we consider even the courtly writers such as Spenser, Sidney, and Raleigh we will recognize that the writing was a means of establishing one's credentials and making political connections. I agree that a great many artists involved in any art would quite likely continue to create even if they were assured that they would never earn the least dime... but would Dickens or Shakespeare have written differently if they knew they would never make the least profit? I somehow doubt it. I imagine every artist has an idea audience in his or her mind that is in many ways quite like themselves. Was Joyce writing in order to intentionally be obscure or baffle the majority of readers... or was he writing for an audience much like himself: incredibly well-read, fluent in several languages, with a love of language and word-play?

I agree that many people take to writing with the idea that they can make money out of it but very few do. While there are those who are more concerned to get their message across, making money is incidental to what they want their audience to read. George Orwell was taken up by Victor Gollancz, a wealthy socialist publisher, because he was impressed with Orwell's apparent disdain for money and his strong socialist convictions. Gollancz also published other writers on the strength of their socialism whose work might never have otherwise seen the light of day.
In my own case, I wrote and had my first novel published in exactly the same spirit that Orwell wrote his books, although it is written from the opposite end of the political spectrum. I never wrote a single word of it with a view to making money.

[stlukesguild]

I agree that many people take to writing with the idea that they can make money out of it but very few do. While there are those who are more concerned to get their message across, making money is incidental to what they want their audience to read. George Orwell was taken up by George Weidenfeld, a wealthy socialist publisher, because he was impressed with Orwell's apparent disdain for money and his strong socialist convictions. Weidenfeld also published other writers on the strength of their socialism whose work might never have otherwise seen the light of day.
In my own case, I wrote and had my first novel published in exactly the same spirit that Orwell wrote his books, although it is written from the opposite end of the political spectrum. I never wrote a single word of it with a view to making money.

Perhaps you should apply for a grant to Rush Limbaugh.:ciappa:

[Emil Miller]

I agree that many people take to writing with the idea that they can make money out of it but very few do. While there are those who are more concerned to get their message across, making money is incidental to what they want their audience to read. George Orwell was taken up by George Weidenfeld, a wealthy socialist publisher, because he was impressed with Orwell's apparent disdain for money and his strong socialist convictions. Weidenfeld also published other writers on the strength of their socialism whose work might never have otherwise seen the light of day.
In my own case, I wrote and had my first novel published in exactly the same spirit that Orwell wrote his books, although it is written from the opposite end of the political spectrum. I never wrote a single word of it with a view to making money.

Perhaps you should apply for a grant to Rush Limbaugh.:ciappa:

No need. The book is already in the public domain. You can check it out on Amazon if you want to. I think that, unlike most US political commentators on both sides of the political divide, the book is rather more subtle than the usual US political commentary.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, what's the book called?

[Drkshadow03]

Well, what's the book called?

Pro Bono Publico (http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Bono-Publico-Liberal-Democracy/dp/1425942873/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319419449&sr=8-1)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thanks, Drk. I was considering reading it, but upon reading the product description realized there seemed to be not much need, as it gave the whole plot away.

[Arrowni]

No, not really. For starters, from the publisher's side it is all market-oriented. Often what makes one book with ghosts appear in the literature section of your local bookstore and a different book with ghosts appear in the horror section has everything to do with marketing designations and which publisher ultimately decided to publish your story.

From the writer's side, there is no such thing as work that is strictly artistic or one that is strictly commercial. Anyone who enters writing with dreams of making lots of money is an idiot. It's possible to make lots of money, but it's rare. I'm in constant communication with SF, Horror, and Fantasy writers (ones that are published by major genre presses and magazines). I even know a few Romance writers. All of these writers are genuinely passionate about their work and these genres.

But you could easily write a book that you know cannot be published by conventional reasons, nobody is really stopping you from doing it. And there are enough writers that know fully well that they won't win their lives by writing, so you cannot really argue that they do it "for the money".

It's true that the notion of what a great book is, is intrinsically related with its publication and widespread fame, regardless of the initial task set by publisher or author. However, there are many incredibly great books that aren't getting republished nor translated, and their quality is not in proportion with the number of books out there.

Market and artistic quality seem to be dependant of similar original factors, but independant from each other.

[Emil Miller]

Thanks, Drk. I was considering reading it, but upon reading the product description realized there seemed to be not much need, as it gave the whole plot away.

If you click on the Write a Book Review sub-forum and then click on the words Pro Bono Publico in the top right-hand corner of the screen, you will see that Neely has aready reviewed it. It will give you an alternative view of the book.

[mal4mac]

All published texts are market-oriented. Why would you publish your text if you didn't want people to buy it? If they really didn't want to be commercial, they could just give out the book for free on the internet. Some writers may look more artistic than others but they all have to tow the line to get published.

Your motivation for publishing a text might be to show you are good enough to be the one in a thousand who gets off the slush pile - you have passed one of the main gatekeepers of literature when you get past the publisher's reader.

I've never read a novel put on the internet for free - I want someone to weed out the 999 rubbish novels before I take a chance!... And still many of the ones I take a chance on are rubbish anyway, even from supposed top authors (I still haven't forgiven Amis for "The Pregnant Widow".)

[YW1990]

All published texts are market-oriented. Why would you publish your text if you didn't want people to buy it? If they really didn't want to be commercial, they could just give out the book for free on the internet. Some writers may look more artistic than others but they all have to tow the line to get published.

I think this is a good point. All writers definitely want readers, as with anything of an artistic nature. Art and artists seek out audiences to demonstrate their ideas and work. The point of art ( and you can definitely apply this to literature since literature is just a branch of art ) is to stir and to evoke some sort of emotion in people, so i think that there's nothing wrong for an author to be market orientated. However, I can't help but feel some sort of contempt for commerical authors. Granted, commercial authors can have artistic merit as with artistic authors with commercial merit but i just can't seem to divorce myself from the ' commercial ' side of things. I like the idea of a writer who is writing out of an urgency to express himself whether the idea is marketable or not.
That is what in my opinion differentiates between commercial and artistic authors. Commercial authors belong to everyone. Artistic authors belong to themselves.

[Emil Miller]

Your motivation for publishing a text might be to show you are good enough to be the one in a thousand who gets off the slush pile - you have passed one of the main gatekeepers of literature when you get past the publisher's reader.

I've never read a novel put on the internet for free - I want someone to weed out the 999 rubbish novels before I take a chance!... And still many of the ones I take a chance on are rubbish anyway, even from supposed top authors (I still haven't forgiven Amis for "The Pregnant Widow".)

Actually it's no longer the publisher's reader but the literary agent, without whom no publisher will take on a MS. In my experience, the majority of people working for agencies are women: hence the great number of trashy 'women's stories' that fill the bookstores.
As I've said elsewhere on this forum, agents and publishers are only interested in pulp fiction that has a ready made customer base in the form of people who like reading the equivalent of the average mobile phone conversation.

As for Amis, I once read a magazine article by him and henceforth decided to give Amis A miss.

[YW1990]

I suppose it's realistic that commericial authors make it more often than artistic authors but i don't know. This sort of depresses me.

[stlukesguild]

I can't help but feel some sort of contempt for commerical authors.

So you feel a contempt for Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Virgil, Shakespeare, Moliere, Dickens, Flaubert, Goethe, Tolstoy, Poe, Whitman, Hemingway, Faulkner, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, and many, many more. Indeed, one might argue the majority of all that we think of as great literature?

Granted, commercial authors can have artistic merit as with artistic authors with commercial merit but i just can't seem to divorce myself from the ' commercial ' side of things.

So the problem is with yourself, not with the artists in question.

I like the idea of a writer who is writing out of an urgency to express himself whether the idea is marketable or not.

It's a lovely fantasy... but that's all it is: a fantasy. Artists need to pay rent, to eat, to support their families, etc... For whatever reason, society just hasn't taken kindly to the idea of supporting anyone whop declares himself or herself an artist without expecting something in return. This leaves the artist with two options: to support themselves through their art (which can be a dicey proposition at best... even for those who strive to meet public demand); or support themselves through some other means... which essentially amounts to sacrificing a great deal of the time and effort that might be devoted to their creative efforts in some alternative means of employment. That's reality.

That is what in my opinion differentiates between commercial and artistic authors. Commercial authors belong to everyone. Artistic authors belong to themselves.

The Romantics have much to answer for with regard to the fantasies they gave birth to concerning "self expression" (What is "self expression" and what creative endeavor isn't "self expressive" to some degree? Is the self really that important that it alone is worthy of expression? It would seem to me that a lot of the greatest art is about more than the artist's personal experiences). They also need to answer to the invention of the Romantic myth of the artist as somehow different from everyone else. I can see why Romanticism remains so popular. It supports the adolescent self/ego-centric world view... not that I don't quite love the Romantics myself.

The artist is as much in the service of others and anyone else.

[Mr.lucifer]

Hell, even artistic writers have a market. In bookstore, all artistic books are put in the literature section with with the descriptions talking about how great they are. In fact, in the literary community, literary fiction is known as mainstream fiction and writers like stephen king and stephenie meyer are for the masses, who are seen as outsiders.

Hell, let us not forget many artistic writers were well off. Some of them were even best selling authors. Today, some of them are still are. 100 years of solitude sold over 30 million books and is required reading in many latin america schools. Orhan Pamuk sold over 11 million books. Yu Hua's To live sold over 500,000 copies. Lets not forget that acclaimed writers get their books translated in many countries.

[togre]

I think an interesting anecdote is the SF author David Webber. He has written a variety of series and novels and has without a doubt achieved success in his particular area. But recently I have read quite a few reviews complaining about his recent works. They basically argue, since he has achieved commercial success his publishers can't or won't force him to edit down material like they used to, and as a result his recent books are huge and ponderous. I'm not sure I agree in this particular instant, but do you really think an artist or author produces better work without outside demands and standards being pressed upon them?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you click on the Write a Book Review sub-forum and then click on the words Pro Bono Publico in the top right-hand corner of the screen, you will see that Neely has aready reviewed it. It will give you an alternative view of the book.

I'd like to read it, but I can't find it. :(

[Emil Miller]

I'd like to read it, but I can't find it. :(

OK. Click on Literature Network Forums at the top left hand corner of the page you are on.
There is a drop down menu of sub forums on the next page.
Click on the one marked Write a Book Review and then when the next page comes up, click on Pro Bono Publico at the top right hand corner.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

OhhhhhHHHHHHhhhhhhhhh . . . I was looking for a subforum on Amazon's website. :lol:

[Emil Miller]

OhhhhhHHHHHHhhhhhhhhh . . . I was looking for a subforum on Amazon's website. :lol:

Well it's easily done, because Amazon also allows for reviews.

[cafolini]

Some people in this thread are often talking about good and bad art as if it were up to them to judge it. They have no general definition (Thank goodness, that would be worse). They obviously operate strictly culturally, covertly, and with hidden prejudices of all sorts.

[Drkshadow03]

I suppose it's realistic that commericial authors make it more often than artistic authors but i don't know. This sort of depresses me.

Do they? If we use the original example, I'm positive that Cormac McCarthy sells extremely well and isn't starving in the streets. I'm not certain he sells better than Dennis Lehane, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

Lee Childs, the best-selling mystery writer, once ran his mouth on a public television show that he could write a deep novel just like all those literary writers, but they never could write an exciting thriller and make as many sales as him. The only problem is someone who had seen the special where he made this remark decided to check Bookscan, which keeps track of book sales, and decided to compare him to a literary author. A literary author like Ian McEwan outsold Lee Childs by a good margin.

Contemporary literary writers like Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon make plenty of money from their writing.

[stuntpickle]

Usually I'm a one book at a time kind of reader but lately I've been reading multiple books by multiple authors at once. By doing so I feel my awareness of commercial writing vs artistic writing has really sharpened. For example, right now I'm reading two books. "Shutter Island" by Dennis Lehane and "Outer Dark" by Cormac McCarthy. These two authors couldn't be more different. I feel like Dennis Lehane is very commercial. His writing is very simple and quick to read. And his overall story ideas and plot development are very much "hollywood". On the other hand I find Cormac McCarthy's writing is highly complex, his vocabulary is extensive, and his story ideas are so dark and disturbing that they're about as far away from anything "mainstream" as you can get. In other words, I feel like Cormac McCarthy writes how he wants to, not how writing experts tell him he should, and if you don't like his writing he doesn't seem to care.

So what are your thoughts on commercial writers vs artistic writers?

Very often, when presented with an honestly formulated question, the partisans of modern education engage in a sham discourse, which works as an impediment to an actual one. Thus, when someone suggests a distinction between commercial and fine art, a distinction both obvious and conventional, someone else must then present his axe for grinding. The phenomenon you describe is, I think, familiar to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with books.

Many of the people in this thread believe, I think, that the label “fine art” is somehow synonymous with “superior art.” The difference is actually similar to the difference between the two different colleges, one commercial, one fine, that exist simultaneously on some University campuses and have the same subject of music as their foci. A student studying “commercial music” pursues musical study in a manner that is likely to produce a paycheck, whereas the music student in the Fine Arts Department does not. This, of course, is not to say that a student in the Commercial Music Department cannot be technically and artistically superior to one in the other department, nor that the student in the Fine Arts Department can never get a decent job. The difference, unlike what some have suggested, has nothing to do with a system of categorization devised by marketers and other rogues. The difference concerns what I will call “artistic intentions,” which are, as you have surely noticed, in both cases safely described as “artistic.”

This subject is most beautifully discussed in Nabokov’s “The Art of Literature and Commonsense.” Of course, Nabokov’s estimation of “commercial art” is perhaps less than mine. Nevertheless, we can, in good conscience, excuse any rabble rouser, insisting that the distinction is a false one, from the conversation. And as he exits the swinging door, let him take with him that slobbering dullard ranting about “purple prose,” who is perhaps unaware that both minimalist and maximalist approaches are valid, and that the guileless sentences of Hemingway and Bukowski (undoubtedly his literary idols) provide wonderful examples of what was once called “aschematiston,” a variety of vice BYU’s Silva Rhetoricae defines as “the use of plain, unadorned or unornamented language.”

[stlukesguild]

Some people in this thread are often talking about good and bad art as if it were up to them to judge it.

Perhaps they can. Indeed, it should be stated that ultimately the final judgment of what is "good" or "bad" is left up to the individual. As for establishing what is or is not a "classic" or "important" or "great" or "canonical" work of art... that simply involves a knowledge of the history of a given art form and recognizing those works that have had the most profound impact upon subsequent artists/critics/art lovers. As for whether these works are "good" or "better" than others, that is simply based upon the somewhat logical assumption that a work of art that has had a profound impact upon a good number of later artists and that continues to resonate with a sizable audience well-versed within that art form probably has some merit to it... whether we as individuals can appreciate this or not.

They obviously operate strictly culturally, covertly, and with hidden prejudices of all sorts.

Let me guess... you just finished Politically Correct Literary Criticism 101? Certainly everyone operates under certain prejudices... if only the prejudices of prior experience. What is recognized as the "canon" of art or literature, however, is the product of ages... centuries of collective opinions from individuals of different cultures, experiences, etc... If you are suggesting that cultural prejudices impact what survives and what attains a certain degree of recognition, this is true to a given extent. An author writing in Hungarian or Polish or Portuguese will be limited in his or her ability to reach a greater audience. Artistic achievement often involves being in the right place at the right time. How "great" would Michelangelo have been had he lived in Denmark? having bthe support of wealthy and powerful patrons, and winning important commissions certainly helped place him on the map. On the other hand... cultural prejudices rarely seem to impact what art survives and rises to a given status. Michelangelo stands as perhaps the single greatest artist in the Western tradition... in spite of his homosexuality which should have undermined his stature if cultural prejudices were as central as some imagine. The same might be said of Shakespeare. How is it that a bi-sexual author of what was imagined to be the lowest of literary forms (the play)... and the author whose plays are rather ammoral (good does not always win out; evil is not always punished, the good can often be bland, while the evil are sophisticated and persuasive) would be chosen as the central figure of Western literature over any number of other writers who employ their literary art to moral ends (Tolstoy)?

[YW1990]

I like the idea of a writer who is writing out of an urgency to express himself whether the idea is marketable or not.

It's a lovely fantasy... but that's all it is: a fantasy. Artists need to pay rent, to eat, to support their families, etc... For whatever reason, society just hasn't taken kindly to the idea of supporting anyone whop declares himself or herself an artist without expecting something in return. This leaves the artist with two options: to support themselves through their art (which can be a dicey proposition at best... even for those who strive to meet public demand); or support themselves through some other means... which essentially amounts to sacrificing a great deal of the time and effort that might be devoted to their creative efforts in some alternative means of employment. That's reality.

That is what in my opinion differentiates between commercial and artistic authors. Commercial authors belong to everyone. Artistic authors belong to themselves.

The Romantics have much to answer for with regard to the fantasies they gave birth to concerning "self expression" (What is "self expression" and what creative endeavor isn't "self expressive" to some degree? Is the self really that important that it alone is worthy of expression? It would seem to me that a lot of the greatest art is about more than the artist's personal experiences). They also need to answer to the invention of the Romantic myth of the artist as somehow different from everyone else. I can see why Romanticism remains so popular. It supports the adolescent self/ego-centric world view... not that I don't quite love the Romantics myself.

The artist is as much in the service of others and anyone else.

1. Don't get me wrong, i know what reality is. I know that artists must cater themselves to what is marketable in order to turn in a profit. You were right in saying they have a choice. They can either be scrupulous to what they want to write or create and not make any money, or choose to adapt their work to what is marketable and turn in a profit. But the idea of a person who writes or creates art solely for the purposes of making money to me, can't privilege themselves by deeming themselves as an artist.

I disagree with you when you say that the greatest art goes beyond the artists personal experiences. It's true that a level of self-detachment is needed for an artist to see the artwork in a objective way which is advantageous for anyone in a creative field. And it is also true that there comes a point when an art work is divorced from the artist, taking on an autonomous life of its own. But the spark that prompts an artist to create something is a truly personal thing. They feel compelled to create something simply because they have been affected personally. This in my opinion is a 'personal experience'. The whole artwork may not be entirely about this personal experience but the instigator of creating art is always a personal one.

[Drkshadow03]

1. Don't get me wrong, i know what reality is. I know that artists must cater themselves to what is marketable in order to turn in a profit. You were right in saying they have a choice. They can either be scrupulous to what they want to write or create and not make any money, or choose to adapt their work to what is marketable and turn in a profit. But the idea of a person who writes or creates art solely for the purposes of making money to me, can't privilege themselves by deeming themselves as an artist.


But that is exactly the point. There are plenty of writers who write exactly what they want to write and make money from it, whether it's Cormac McCarthy or Dennis Lehane. It's not an either/or situation. It's not write what you want and make no profit (choice 1) or write what is marketable and make a profit (choice 2). You're creating an imaginary dichotomy that doesn't exist.

[mona amon]

But that is exactly the point. There are plenty of writers who write exactly what they want to write and make money from it, whether it's Cormac McCarthy or Dennis Lehane. It's not an either/or situation. It's not write what you want and make no profit (choice 1) or write what is marketable and make a profit (choice 2). You're creating an imaginary dichotomy that doesn't exist.

I agree. I think a lot of good authors consciously or unconsciously manage to get the best of both worlds. Shakespeare was definitely trying to make his work entertaining to a wide range of audience, and that doesn't affect the literary merit of his works. Charlotte Bronte seems to have heeded her publisher's advice and turned out a far more lurid, sensational and meldramatic tale (Jane Eyre) when they refused to publish her restrained and subdued first novel, The Professor.

A book will be good or bad or great depending on the authors skill and talent or genius, not on whether they're writing primarily to make money, or just for the sake of writing.

[YW1990]

But that is exactly the point. There are plenty of writers who write exactly what they want to write and make money from it, whether it's Cormac McCarthy or Dennis Lehane. It's not an either/or situation. It's not write what you want and make no profit (choice 1) or write what is marketable and make a profit (choice 2). You're creating an imaginary dichotomy that doesn't exist.

It does exist.
There are authors out there that are lucky enough to write what they want and make money from it. Okay, you've made me realise this and it is a nice thing to realise. But for the other writers that do not have the luxury of this sort of power, they must confront the reality of having to either adapt their styles or ideas to what is marketable or find some other means of making money that isn't related to writing.
When a writer gets a job, they have to comply their writing to that particular job in order to make money and to make sure they don't lose that job. I must add that i'm talking about writers though, not novelists.

As for your second point " Write what you want and make no profit " as being untrue, i see this. You can write what you want and still make a profit, it's just that it's much harder.




A book will be good or bad or great depending on the authors skill and talent or genius, not on whether they're writing primarily to make money, or just for the sake of writing.

I wonder about this.
A book doesn't become successful because a lot of people think that it's good. It becomes successful because one person believed that it was good at the start, then convinced other people that it was also good.

[JCamilo]

The failure is not understanding marketing. It is not about selling a specific product to mass, it is about selling to a specific product to the specific public. This means, they get any product and try to find the right marketing for them. And make profit with it.

Being commercial is different I suppose when the publisher see what is the market model and only hire people willing to repeat this model. For example, J.K.Rowling sucess obviously attracted a lot companies who are not willing to take the risk and sought for similar products. You can have a guy like Neil Gaiman, which was a profitable author prior to her, making the Graveyard Book, which is a Harry Potter is a ghost story to go for market. And he could write anything he wanted.

[cafolini]

Some people in this thread are often talking about good and bad art as if it were up to them to judge it.

Perhaps they can. Indeed, it should be stated that ultimately the final judgment of what is "good" or "bad" is left up to the individual. As for establishing what is or is not a "classic" or "important" or "great" or "canonical" work of art... that simply involves a knowledge of the history of a given art form and recognizing those works that have had the most profound impact upon subsequent artists/critics/art lovers. As for whether these works are "good" or "better" than others, that is simply based upon the somewhat logical assumption that a work of art that has had a profound impact upon a good number of later artists and that continues to resonate with a sizable audience well-versed within that art form probably has some merit to it... whether we as individuals can appreciate this or not.

They obviously operate strictly culturally, covertly, and with hidden prejudices of all sorts.

Let me guess... you just finished Politically Correct Literary Criticism 101? Certainly everyone operates under certain prejudices... if only the prejudices of prior experience. What is recognized as the "canon" of art or literature, however, is the product of ages... centuries of collective opinions from individuals of different cultures, experiences, etc... If you are suggesting that cultural prejudices impact what survives and what attains a certain degree of recognition, this is true to a given extent. An author writing in Hungarian or Polish or Portuguese will be limited in his or her ability to reach a greater audience. Artistic achievement often involves being in the right place at the right time. How "great" would Michelangelo have been had he lived in Denmark? having bthe support of wealthy and powerful patrons, and winning important commissions certainly helped place him on the map. On the other hand... cultural prejudices rarely seem to impact what art survives and rises to a given status. Michelangelo stands as perhaps the single greatest artist in the Western tradition... in spite of his homosexuality which should have undermined his stature if cultural prejudices were as central as some imagine. The same might be said of Shakespeare. How is it that a bi-sexual author of what was imagined to be the lowest of literary forms (the play)... and the author whose plays are rather ammoral (good does not always win out; evil is not always punished, the good can often be bland, while the evil are sophisticated and persuasive) would be chosen as the central figure of Western literature over any number of other writers who employ their literary art to moral ends (Tolstoy)?

Good museum piece.

[kelby_lake]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]cultural prejudices rarely seem to impact what art survives and rises to a given status. Michelangelo stands as perhaps the single greatest artist in the Western tradition... in spite of his homosexuality which should have undermined his stature if cultural prejudices were as central as some imagine. The same might be said of Shakespeare. How is it that a bi-sexual author of what was imagined to be the lowest of literary forms (the play)... and the author whose plays are rather ammoral (good does not always win out; evil is not always punished, the good can often be bland, while the evil are sophisticated and persuasive) would be chosen as the central figure of Western literature over any number of other writers who employ their literary art to moral ends (Tolstoy)?

Contentious point there :P

[cafolini]

Anything is commercial or it cannot be maintained.

[stlukesguild]

1. Don't get me wrong, i know what reality is. I know that artists must cater themselves to what is marketable in order to turn in a profit. You were right in saying they have a choice. They can either be scrupulous to what they want to write or create and not make any money, or choose to adapt their work to what is marketable and turn in a profit. But the idea of a person who writes or creates art solely for the purposes of making money to me, can't privilege themselves by deeming themselves as an artist.

The point you missed is that it is not an "either/or" decision in which as an artist I choose the noble path of destitution over that of selling out for the almighty dollar. As an artist I must make money one way or another. If I cannot make it from my art, I must make it from another source and this primarily involves employment in another career that will devour much of the time and energy I have to create.

Your notion that those who create solely for the purpose of making money ignores the fact that Shakespeare wrote for clearly mercenary reasons, the Greek playwrights all wrote for competitions and the accompanying prizes, and almost no artist prior to Romanticism (or even later) painted without the thought of earning a living.

I disagree with you when you say that the greatest art goes beyond the artists personal experiences. But the spark that prompts an artist to create something is a truly personal thing.

Oh really? So this was the product of the personal experiences of the artists involved?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6119/6280372376_82a3374c50_b.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6215/6280372446_093a22ee07.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6060/6279854675_3303d92f2a_z.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6113/6279854727_c878d4c840_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6228/6280372632_15318335ff_b.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6232/6279855215_bd73610b39_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6116/6279855099_c0f60843e9_z.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6038/6279855289_e4bce0de00_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6057/6279855245_f91666c968_b.jpg

In each and every one of the above examples the art work was in no way the result of the initial spark of the artist. The idea and the commission for the given projects came from someone else. Nor was the goal "self-expression". The goal was the expression of some higher ideal... whether it be about the immortality of the Pharaoh or the Emperor, an exaltation of God, praise of the King and aristocracy, etc... the ideal was certainly not the expression of the artist's personal feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc... Certainly the end result involves some degree of "self-expression". This cannot be otherwise. The artist will always bring him or herself... his/her own experiences, abilities, limitations, and understandings to any artistic endeavor... yet how exactly is the portrait of the king different from the creation of an ad promoting Campbell's Soup? How is the illustration of the Deposition different from the illustration in a child's book or a magazine created to illuminate a given story?

They feel compelled to create something simply because they have been affected personally.

So the Sistine or the Portrait of Phillip II or Chartres Cathedral were undertaken because the artists involved simply felt personally compelled to create such works?

This in my opinion is a 'personal experience'. The whole artwork may not be entirely about this personal experience but the instigator of creating art is always a personal one.

So again... the initial spark that resulted in the creation of Giotto's Arena Chapel was rooted in Giotto's own personal feelings/thoughts/experiences?

[osho]

Today we are graduating to an epoch wherein the perceivable gap we always felt is gradually getting filled. In the classical age there were distinct lines and there were too many rules and poetry was rhymed and certain meters were always taken into considered and even the language of poetry and the one spoken was not one and the same. People took pride in using or latinizing their dictions.

But today this line is getting blurred and of course the yardstick of any work of art is readership. We live in an age of market economy and customer is king in today's world and if your readers like you become a best seller. Of course there are critics who want you to rise a little above or go a bit beyond the stereotypical. They want to write for the class not for the mass. Of course there are a variety of awards that drive you to be different from the rest. But today the world is changing and human values are undergoing a dramatic shift.

That is why I think this idea of commercial and artistic authors.

[Alexander III]

But today this line is getting blurred and of course the yardstick of any work of art is readership. We live in an age of market economy and customer is king in today's world and if your readers like you become a best seller. Of course there are critics who want you to rise a little above or go a bit beyond the stereotypical. They want to write for the class not for the mass. Of course there are a variety of awards that drive you to be different from the rest. But today the world is changing and human values are undergoing a dramatic shift.


Sorry if I sound rough saying this - but the world you describe is that of the turn of the century. We are 100 years beyond that already.

[osho]

Sorry if I sound rough saying this - but the world you describe is that of the turn of the century. We are 100 years beyond that already.

You maybe true and this necessitates redefining literature and reclassifying literary theory. This century is different from any other of the past in that things are undergoing dramatic phases or shifts and your particular theories or propositions will prove wrong in a while.

[Alexander III]

You maybe true and this necessitates redefining literature and reclassifying literary theory. This century is different from any other of the past in that things are undergoing dramatic phases or shifts and your particular theories or propositions will prove wrong in a while.

No you misunderstand. I agree that our present time is one of changes. But the changes you ascribed to our time, are in fact the changes of the turn of the century. All the changes you spoke of are now long implemented and of no novelty.

Our time is one of great change. You just have not, like I have not, spotted the exact nature of this change. So you just talk of the change you know, that of the history books which is not relevant to now, even though it is very easy to talk about with 100 year of history to figure it out.

[cafolini]

You maybe true and this necessitates redefining literature and reclassifying literary theory. This century is different from any other of the past in that things are undergoing dramatic phases or shifts and your particular theories or propositions will prove wrong in a while.

I agree with Osho. This is because philosophy and theology have been overcome together with humanity. And what superseded the stage is science and technology of very specific natures in an increasing postmodern multiplicity which is here to stay. Masses vs classes are no longer an issue in the avantgardes. Even avantgarde is gone constantly to more multiplicity. This is the age of discovery and divulgation. The only thing that could be said to last is usefulness. But because of constant idealization and reidealization as ruled by improvement, even much of the useful soon becomes useless. We are marching inexorably toward the globalization of progress in usefulness.

[Alexander III]

I agree with Osho. This is because philosophy and theology have been overcome together with humanity. And what superseded the stage is science and technology of very specific natures in an increasing postmodern multiplicity which is here to stay. Masses vs classes are no longer an issue in the avantgardes. Even avantgarde is gone constantly to more multiplicity. This is the age of discovery and divulgation. The only thing that could be said to last is usefulness. But because of constant idealization and reidealiation as ruled by improvement, even much of the useful soon becomes useless. We are marching inexorably toward the globalization of progress in usefulness.

But you do realize that the description you guys give is so vague and convoluted that it could literaly be applied to any era and make sense?

[Mr.lucifer]

I thought literary writers write what they want all the time. In the literary field, isn't it expected of the writer to create quality fiction? Aren't they also working their way to earn a nobel prize?

Aren't there a high number of writers around the world who sell and get to write what they desire?

[cafolini]

But you do realize that the description you guys give is so vague and convoluted that it could literaly be applied to any era and make sense?

No. And who are "you guys?"

[Drkshadow03]

It does exist.
There are authors out there that are lucky enough to write what they want and make money from it. Okay, you've made me realise this and it is a nice thing to realise. But for the other writers that do not have the luxury of this sort of power, they must confront the reality of having to either adapt their styles or ideas to what is marketable or find some other means of making money that isn't related to writing.
When a writer gets a job, they have to comply their writing to that particular job in order to make money and to make sure they don't lose that job. I must add that i'm talking about writers though, not novelists.

As for your second point " Write what you want and make no profit " as being untrue, i see this. You can write what you want and still make a profit, it's just that it's much harder.



It sounds to me like you're talking about technical writing rather than creative fictional writing, particularly when you mention a "writer get[ting] a job" and then "complyi[ing] that writing to that particular job." For fiction, you generally submit to open markets into slush piles or agents in the case of novels. You don't get a job, but rather you submit a story and then they select it if they like it enough. Then the agents tries to place it with an editor. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about to be honest.

I suspect many writers who try to write to market are unsuccessful, although some may get lucky. However, it can backfire very easily. "Stephanie Meyers wrote a vampire story! I can write a vampire story too!"

Rejection Letter: We're sorry, Mr. Johnson, we're rejecting your story because we received over 300 vampire manuscripts in the last week alone.

[stlukesguild]

I agree with Osho. This is because philosophy and theology have been overcome together with humanity. And what superseded the stage is science and technology of very specific natures in an increasing postmodern multiplicity which is here to stay. Masses vs classes are no longer an issue in the avantgardes. Even avantgarde is gone constantly to more multiplicity.

Of course the very notion of the avant garde is dated. It's a concept rooted in Romanticism and the notion that the artist is some unique being... a visionary... a political and social revolutionary. This very concept of the artist has been laughable since at least mid-century with few exceptions. You are far more likely to come across the artist... poet... composer... novelist who is openly career-minded than a true revolutionary. Part of this is owed, no doubt, to the fact that the extremes of Modernism resulted in a sort of formalist endgame that succeeded in making art increasingly irrelevant.

[cafolini]

I agree with Osho. This is because philosophy and theology have been overcome together with humanity. And what superseded the stage is science and technology of very specific natures in an increasing postmodern multiplicity which is here to stay. Masses vs classes are no longer an issue in the avantgardes. Even avantgarde is gone constantly to more multiplicity.

Of course the very notion of the avant garde is dated. It's a concept rooted in Romanticism and the notion that the artist is some unique being... a visionary... a political and social revolutionary. This very concept of the artist has been laughable since at least mid-century with few exceptions. You are far more likely to come across the artist... poet... composer... novelist who is openly career-minded than a true revolutionary. Part of this is owed, no doubt, to the fact that the extremes of Modernism resulted in a sort of formalist endgame that succeeded in making art increasingly irrelevant.

I don't think art is irrelevant at all. It is extremely useful, including what you like. But, why should Michaelangelo be more important than the original Apple computer, or the IBM 360. And the cellular phone? What about the Stealth fighter? You name it. They are all works of art.

[stuntpickle]

I don't think art is irrelevant at all. It is extremely useful, including what you like. But, why should Michaelangelo be more important than the original Apple computer, or the IBM 360. And the cellular phone? What about the Stealth fighter? You name it. They are all works of art.

Never has a more vulgar art been proposed than the art of utility. I suspect that noise you keep hearing at night is Oscar Wilde rattling his chains as he attempts to smother you in your sleep.

Perhaps you think your inclusion of computers and stealth fighters as works of art is some enlightened revelation, instead of the most benighted futurism, which I am told is the ideal accessory for the Nazi on the move. A buffed helmet: a work of art. Polished jackboots: a work of art. The texture of ash in the night sky: priceless.

Of course, the problem with an art that appropriates all things is that it is no art at all. Words like "chair" are useful insofar as they help us to distinguish certain objects from those other ones called "tables." When the chair, and the table, and the floor they're sitting on, and the ceiling hovering above them all become art, the word "art" ceases to mean anything.

The reason children today discuss art in terms of market forces and a rigid utility as needless and bizarre as the sums tallied up in the ledgers of utilitarian philosophies, is simply because they can discern nothing else.

[stlukesguild]

Never has a more vulgar art been proposed than the art of utility. I suspect that noise you keep hearing at night is Oscar Wilde rattling his chains as he attempts to smother you in your sleep.

:lol::thumbsup:

Perhaps you think your inclusion of computers and stealth fighters as works of art is some enlightened revelation, instead of the most benighted futurism, which I am told is the ideal accessory for the Nazi on the move. A buffed helmet: a work of art. Polished jackboots: a work of art. The texture of ash in the night sky: priceless.

Of course, the problem with an art that appropriates all things is that it is no art at all. Words like "chair" are useful insofar as they help us to distinguish certain objects from those other ones called "tables." When the chair, and the table, and the floor they're sitting on, and the ceiling hovering above them all become art, the word "art" ceases to mean anything.

And when everything is art it goes by way of logic that everyone is an artist as well. The irony (which eludes the deep thinkers) of such a notion is not unlike that of Lake Wobegon "where all the children are above average".

[JCamilo]

The problem is not even that all can be an artist (surelly a potential to all) it is to think an artist is making art all the time. Thus when you go to bathroom, you should get rich...

[cafolini]

No doubt we'll all become artists in time. I never saw Nazis having any importance or rank in the land of the free and home of the brave. Didn't we finished with them? What about Saddam? What about Gaddafi? What about the Taliban?

[stuntpickle]

No doubt we'll all become artists in time. I never saw Nazis having any importance or rank in the land of the free and home of the brave. Didn't we finished with them? What about Saddam? What about Gaddafi? What about the Taliban?

What about Saddam? You know that Futurism was actually a movement in art in Europe in the early 20th Century, right? It wasn't exactly a "Nazi" thing, as it was largely restricted to Italy prior to WWI, but it conforms quite nicely to the progressive dehumanization that occurred in the first half of the last century--you know, when sociology was reduced to animal husbandry, art was the guillotine's blade rushing toward the nape of your neck, and industry was the measure of how quickly one could process bodies at the crematorium. I should also explain that Futurists found beauty in the violence of motion and technology. They thought cars and airplanes were actual works of art, just like you. In that context, Nazis make more sense than Baathists.

There will never be a time when everyone is an artist if only because art is a difficult pleasure. Too many people prefer the easy ambiguities of history textbooks ("The Industrial Revolution not only revolutionized the mechanisms of production, but also the manner in which people lived their lives.") to the grueling lifelong devotion art requires. The reason most students prefer literary theory to actual works of literature is that theoretical models are just simplifications that allow one to bypass all the difficulty of a specific text. We'll sooner have a world where everyone is president than one where everyone is an artist. A world of sham artists, sham experts, sham persons? That's the one we already live in.

[JCamilo]

No doubt we'll all become artists in time. I never saw Nazis having any importance or rank in the land of the free and home of the brave. Didn't we finished with them? What about Saddam? What about Gaddafi? What about the Taliban?

To be honest,I dunno if you know but as long he was only killing commies, jews and other minorities, the lands of free, braves were pretty much in love with the guy.

Art do not depend on freedom or political regime, people like Augustus or Elizabeth had little notion of democracy, and yet they represent top momments of artistic production. I guess we'll become tyrants in time.

[YW1990]

It sounds to me like you're talking about technical writing rather than creative fictional writing

yes, i stated that i was talking about writers not novelists.

[YW1990]

1. Don't get me wrong, i know what reality is. I know that artists must cater themselves to what is marketable in order to turn in a profit. You were right in saying they have a choice. They can either be scrupulous to what they want to write or create and not make any money, or choose to adapt their work to what is marketable and turn in a profit. But the idea of a person who writes or creates art solely for the purposes of making money to me, can't privilege themselves by deeming themselves as an artist.

The point you missed is that it is not an "either/or" decision in which as an artist I choose the noble path of destitution over that of selling out for the almighty dollar. As an artist I must make money one way or another. If I cannot make it from my art, I must make it from another source and this primarily involves employment in another career that will devour much of the time and energy I have to create.

Your notion that those who create solely for the purpose of making money ignores the fact that Shakespeare wrote for clearly mercenary reasons, the Greek playwrights all wrote for competitions and the accompanying prizes, and almost no artist prior to Romanticism (or even later) painted without the thought of earning a living.

I disagree with you when you say that the greatest art goes beyond the artists personal experiences. But the spark that prompts an artist to create something is a truly personal thing.

Oh really? So this was the product of the personal experiences of the artists involved?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6119/6280372376_82a3374c50_b.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6215/6280372446_093a22ee07.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6060/6279854675_3303d92f2a_z.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6113/6279854727_c878d4c840_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6228/6280372632_15318335ff_b.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6232/6279855215_bd73610b39_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6116/6279855099_c0f60843e9_z.jpg

And this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6038/6279855289_e4bce0de00_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6057/6279855245_f91666c968_b.jpg

In each and every one of the above examples the art work was in no way the result of the initial spark of the artist. The idea and the commission for the given projects came from someone else. Nor was the goal "self-expression". The goal was the expression of some higher ideal... whether it be about the immortality of the Pharaoh or the Emperor, an exaltation of God, praise of the King and aristocracy, etc... the ideal was certainly not the expression of the artist's personal feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc... Certainly the end result involves some degree of "self-expression". This cannot be otherwise. The artist will always bring him or herself... his/her own experiences, abilities, limitations, and understandings to any artistic endeavor... yet how exactly is the portrait of the king different from the creation of an ad promoting Campbell's Soup? How is the illustration of the Deposition different from the illustration in a child's book or a magazine created to illuminate a given story?

They feel compelled to create something simply because they have been affected personally.

So the Sistine or the Portrait of Phillip II or Chartres Cathedral were undertaken because the artists involved simply felt personally compelled to create such works?

This in my opinion is a 'personal experience'. The whole artwork may not be entirely about this personal experience but the instigator of creating art is always a personal one.

So again... the initial spark that resulted in the creation of Giotto's Arena Chapel was rooted in Giotto's own personal feelings/thoughts/experiences?

I guess now the question of what constitutes as art is bought forth. Are the pyramids really a work of art? Or is it merely a burial chamber that the Pharaoh commissioned for the slaves to build for him? Those portraits of royalty/aristocracy are more easily accepted as art because they're paintings, but the point of painting those portraits weren't for artistic purposes but merely to preserve the identity of the royals/aristocrats themselves.

I will admit that you have proven to me that there are 'artworks' that can be deemed as art which have not arisen out of the artists personal sphere. Not all artworks are products of the artists visceral experience. But these examples you've shown me seem to have gradually BECOME art overtime as opposed to being made with the intention of it being taken in as art from the beginning. Can these things you've shown me really be considered art if they weren't intending to be art originally?

If the pyramids were built out of utility purposes for the Pharaoh and have over time become artworks, then that means almost anything can become art over time ( this has already happened a lot come to think of it ). When i look at those portraits and the pyramids, i do regard them as great works of art. But i can also look at them and see them as coming out of utilitarian purposes. However, if i look at a painting say by Picasso or Pollock, it seems that those paintings that they have done have more vested power in being deemed as art because they weren't done out of utilitarian purposes. But i guess the fact that both you and i regard these pyramids, and stained glass ceilings as art trumps the utilitarian factor out of the window.

However, i must also include something that sort of bolsters your position. These photographs of these portraits, stained glass ceilings etc show a great amount of skill and ability. Ignoring the fact that this was the style that characterized the time it came from, they are not shoddily done and do possess beauty and high levels of craftsmanship. To some people, this finery would encourage their reasoning for these stained glass ceilings, pyramids etc to be considered as art.

[cafolini]

What about Saddam? You know that Futurism was actually a movement in art in Europe in the early 20th Century, right? It wasn't exactly a "Nazi" thing, as it was largely restricted to Italy prior to WWI, but it conforms quite nicely to the progressive dehumanization that occurred in the first half of the last century--you know, when sociology was reduced to animal husbandry, art was the guillotine's blade rushing toward the nape of your neck, and industry was the measure of how quickly one could process bodies at the crematorium. I should also explain that Futurists found beauty in the violence of motion and technology. They thought cars and airplanes were actual works of art, just like you. In that context, Nazis make more sense than Baathists.

There will never be a time when everyone is an artist if only because art is a difficult pleasure. Too many people prefer the easy ambiguities of history textbooks ("The Industrial Revolution not only revolutionized the mechanisms of production, but also the manner in which people lived their lives.") to the grueling lifelong devotion art requires. The reason most students prefer literary theory to actual works of literature is that theoretical models are just simplifications that allow one to bypass all the difficulty of a specific text. We'll sooner have a world where everyone is president than one where everyone is an artist. A world of sham artists, sham experts, sham persons? That's the one we already live in.

You put a lot of likes or dislikes in my mouth of which I have not spoken. Frankly I don't see the world going in the direction you are pointing. But this is not said to get entangled with you on a stage that makes you confortable.

[stlukesguild]

I guess now the question of what constitutes as art is bought forth. Are the pyramids really a work of art? Or is it merely a burial chamber that the Pharaoh commissioned for the slaves to build for him? Those portraits of royalty/aristocracy are more easily accepted as art because they're paintings, but the point of painting those portraits weren't for artistic purposes but merely to preserve the identity of the royals/aristocrats themselves.

I will admit that you have proven to me that there are 'artworks' that can be deemed as art which have not arisen out of the artists personal sphere. Not all artworks are products of the artists visceral experience. But these examples you've shown me seem to have gradually BECOME art overtime as opposed to being made with the intention of it being taken in as art from the beginning. Can these things you've shown me really be considered art if they weren't intending to be art originally?

I think one might easily find similar examples in literature of a work that was not created with the (primary) intention of artistic self-expression... but are clearly art: the Bible, the Qur'an, the sacred texts of India such as the Mahabharata. There is little doubt that these are ART... but were they created as ART? One might throw Shakespeare into the mix. Were his plays intended as ART... or as entertainment? How important was the Romantic idea of "self-expression" to him if he didn't even see fit to publish the plays? I suspect that even one of the great Romantics, William Blake, might have had a problem with the modern notion of ART. He was surely writing for reasons far removed from aesthetic concerns.

The modern concepts of ART and ARTISTS are not universal... nor have they been embraced over the ages. The visual arts... painting and sculpture were never considered part of the "Liberal Arts". Until the Renaissance, they were largely thought of as little more than a form of skilled manual labor... a bit above that of the black-smith. The novel was dismissed as mere entertainment... specifically aimed at women and the lower classes... for quite some time after its inception. Film was mere entertainment to many involved in its creation... in spite of the fact that we now recognize that it may have been the greatest art form of the last century.

Art is not defined by the artist... for the simple reason that there is no clear path to becoming an artist other than that the individual creates something recognized by others as art. Art is defined by the audience. As such, whether something is or is not art may certainly change over time. That which an audience deems art today may be completely dismissed later. At the same time, that which was never intended as ART... a portrait, an icon, a religious text, an autobiography, a journal, etc... may later be recognized as art by an audience.

A great deal of the notion that "everything is art" is owed to the realization that what is art is not so clearly defined as was once thought. ART can come from the most unexpected places. "Fine Art" was once nearly limited to painting, drawing, print, sculpture, and architecture. Over time it was recognized that tapestries and carpets and clothing could also be works of art. Ceramics and metal work and enamels could also be ART. Calligraphy could be ART. Indeed... as has been suggested... ART could come from almost everywhere. Almost anything can be ART. This is not the same as saying "Anything (without the qualifier, "almost") IS (as opposed to "can be") ART.

What is fascinating is that Western culture still embraces the notion of a dichotomy between "fine art/high art/serious art" and the "decorative arts/commercial arts/mechanical arts/utilitarian arts." While there may be a difference in intention or inspiration (and the line between the two is often blurred) is there really an inherent superiority of one over the other? In many ways this is simply a hold-over to 19th century class issues. A painting, which only the wealthy could afford and appreciate must be inherently superior to a carpet or a poster or any other art form with any utilitarian value. There is no logical reason to support this idea. A film by Hitchcock intended as popular entertainment can have more artistic merit than any number of self-indulgent "films as art". The Japanese Ukiyo-e prints which were considered at the time as the lowest of art forms... something akin to picture postcards geared toward tourists... are now recognized as being among the finest artistic creations of japanese culture... to such an extent that the names of the artists (Hokusai, Hiroshige, Utamaro, etc...) are far more known than those of the "fine arts" painters of the time.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Off-topic . . . but I was at the Notre Dame cathedral a few weeks ago. I think it may have been the single most spectacular thing I've ever seen. If it isn't a work of art, I don't know what is.

[stuntpickle]

is there really an inherent superiority of one over the other?

I'm not sure this has been stated in this discussion. If it has, let me apologize. But I think this part of the conversation represents an erroneous assumption on your part. I know, for sure, that I have explicitly stated that to distinguish between commercial and fine arts is, in NO WAY, to propose any variety of superiority.

Forget books for a minute. Take a movie like, say, Michael Bay's Transformers and compare it to Kaufman's Synecdoche, NY . I suspect a nearly uniform understanding that the motivations behind these movies are categorically different, which is to say nothing of their respective merits. Michael Bay is admittedly attempting to engage a broader audience with perhaps a balder demonstration of spectacle to the exclusion of other artistic mechanisms, whereas Kaufman is obviously more concerned with form, perhaps to the exclusion of some of the audience. It does NOT necessarily follow that Kaufman is superior to Bay, which might be true, but would require an entirely different conversation likely more complex than a determination of who is more commercial.

Perhaps the publishing industry is more opaque than the movie-making one. But I can assure you these same sorts of divisions exist--perhaps even more rigidly. And although these "camps" are not strictly commercial and fine arts camps (perhaps they can more accurately be described as commercial and academic), they follow roughly similar sorts of credos to what one would expect. No one, on the face of the planet, is confused about which variety of novel Glen Beck is writing. Everyone understands his motivations are mercenary, which says nothing of Glen Beck's skill as a writer.

To say there is a division between commercial and fine arts is not a rallying cry in the culture wars, but a fairly insipid and easy observation.

[stlukesguild]

I'm not sure this has been stated in this discussion. If it has, let me apologize. But I think this part of the conversation represents an erroneous assumption on your part. I know, for sure, that I have explicitly stated that to distinguish between commercial and fine arts is, in NO WAY, to propose any variety of superiority.

But that is exactly the assumption that some here are making: the notion that there is an inherently moral and aesthetic superiority to the work of art created solely for the sake of "self-expression" as opposed to the work of art created for money... whether it be commission or commercial art. There is no question that we can discern a difference in intention between a work created for primarily "mercenary" purposes and that created solely as personal artistic exploration and self-expression (although clearly most art works do not fall at one extreme or the other... hence the blurring of the lines). The argument put forth, however, has been to suggest the the work not created wholly within the Romantic ideal of "self-expression"... essentially, the art work created with an audience in mind is somehow "impure" and inherently inferior.

[YW1990]

Art is not defined by the artist... for the simple reason that there is no clear path to becoming an artist other than that the individual creates something recognized by others as art. Art is defined by the audience. As such, whether something is or is not art may certainly change over time. That which an audience deems art today may be completely dismissed later. At the same time, that which was never intended as ART... a portrait, an icon, a religious text, an autobiography, a journal, etc... may later be recognized as art by an audience.


But if the validity of what is art is determined by the audience, then doesn't that mean that anything can be art as long as the audience believes that it is so? Do you believe that the power of what is deemed as art is vested in the audience or the individual? Audience seems to have more of a collective feel about it. The word seems to denote a notion of ' consensus '. If a collective amount of people regard something as art, then it is more likely to be regarded as so. Great artworks such as the mona lisa is regarded as a great work of art by an audience or the general consensus.
But what about the individual? If an individual see's something as simple as a glass cup as a work of art, does this make it so? Indeed it does to the individual. If a collective audience begins to see this simple glass cup as a work of art, then does this ratify its credibility as a work of art twice fold? If ratification of what is art depends upon an audience, then the statement " Everything is art" appears to be more valid than first glance. It is as if everything is already art, we just haven't discovered that it is yet.


A great deal of the notion that "everything is art" is owed to the realization that what is art is not so clearly defined as was once thought. ART can come from the most unexpected places. "Fine Art" was once nearly limited to painting, drawing, print, sculpture, and architecture. Over time it was recognized that tapestries and carpets and clothing could also be works of art. Ceramics and metal work and enamels could also be ART. Calligraphy could be ART. Indeed... as has been suggested... ART could come from almost everywhere. Almost anything can be ART. This is not the same as saying "Anything (without the qualifier, "almost") IS (as opposed to "can be") ART.

So you're saying that not everything is art, but everything has the power to spawn works of art? But then isn't the claim that everything is art that is made by an individual just as valid as your personal claim that not everything is art? The problems that arise out of subjectivity...

[Drkshadow03]

I'm not sure this has been stated in this discussion. If it has, let me apologize. But I think this part of the conversation represents an erroneous assumption on your part. I know, for sure, that I have explicitly stated that to distinguish between commercial and fine arts is, in NO WAY, to propose any variety of superiority.

But that is exactly the assumption that some here are making: the notion that there is an inherently moral and aesthetic superiority to the work of art created solely for the sake of "self-expression" as opposed to the work of art created for money... whether it be commission or commercial art. There is no question that we can discern a difference in intention between a work created for primarily "mercenary" purposes and that created solely as personal artistic exploration and self-expression (although clearly most art works do not fall at one extreme or the other... hence the blurring of the lines). The argument put forth, however, has been to suggest the the work not created wholly within the Romantic ideal of "self-expression"... essentially, the art work created with an audience in mind is somehow "impure" and inherently inferior.

As you suggest, I think there is also the problem that no art is fully one or the other. Like I said, I know a lot of artists writing in so-called "commercial" genres, and while they want to make money by selling their stories and reaching a wide audience, most of them feel passionate about those stories and genres. So how is that any less self-expression?

I would agree, with some reservations, with Stuntpickle's point about artistic intent, although for different reasons. Many in this group are less interested in form and more interest in telling a good story, and that does suggest a difference in artistic intent. However, there are too many exceptions to this rule for it to be overly useful. There are many writers working in popular genres that are interested in form and style, while still being shelved in the SF, Fantasy, and Horror shelves, and publishing with SF, Horror, and Fantasy publishers.

Add in the problem of many literary writers selling better than commercial writers, most writers in so-called "commercial" genres not really making much in the way of money at all, and realizing that many popular genres are better classified as markets geared towards a specific audience rather than a broad one, and the very term "commercial" doesn't really make much sense anymore. In most cases, what people have actually been discussing are different niche markets.

[Arrowni]

Are you saying that the telling of a story, any story is not a aesthetic choice?


:o

[JCamilo]

Well, this question was made by students this very year. Even when a normal person tell a story he starts to stilish reality. The most realistic narrative (hey uncle, mommy come home and said when you were kids, you hit her with a axe that is why she is...) is already an artificial reconstruction. There is aesthetical elements that some will use more or less in more ambitious scale.

Take Stlukes - he sometimes may draw a map to help someone to go to his house. He wont stop and "here i will leave behind all I learnt about making a square that looks like a square just in case this dude decides to sell it as my artwork". He will just do it, such is life.

This implies the obvious: several activites require aesthetical approach and are not art. Or made by someone who consider himself an artist. There is an entire process (and that is why the audience is not the single judge of all that is art) that gives relevance to the message in that work, the aesthetical options, the context of that production and exposition, the capacity of a society to dialogue with that and how it keep producing more and more inspiration for more art. The is a historical process which is not linked only to the object.

[osho]

I often feel that commercialism has more to do with taste and beauty and it is readers centric and on the other hand a literary piece to be artistic must be eccentrically artist-centric. They do not care about readership and whether or not their works sell or whether or not they will make to prosperity they do not care and all they care about is art and they experiment with vocabulary, with style and with philosophy. Some writers are fortunate to be both commercially and artistically successful and they are best sellers. The Road is of course one of such books. Taste is in fact important whether the one artistically inclined subscribe or not to this idea and if there is no taste and if the writer writes for personal gratification making maximum use of inventiveness uncaring what his readers will feel about he is not a good writer. I often feel that James Joyce is a wonderful writer and I like Ulysses when I read slowly, leisurely with a lot of respite. I find poetry in every line of his novel and I do not read and in fact cannot do so speedily for he has so many allusions and inferences born of his erudition and vast scholastic knowledge. Having this said I still do not consider James a successful writer since he wrote in the interest of the fewest literary clique he had in mind. Maybe we like the one who is simple yet grave. I recall reading Khalil Gibran’s the Prophet. It is a masterpiece of poems ever written in English and I have read it several times. It is very simple yet very penetrating, philosophic , literary, stylistic yet has been a best seller.