Art and Money

So this past fall, I was going to go to this forum at the New York Public Library sponsored by the photography journal Blind Spot, which quarterly publishes work by both renowned and up and coming photographers. It's a pretty big deal. But anyway, they were cosponsoring a 3-part forum. The first part was a discussion between two photographers. The third part was "Truth and Authenticity in Photography" - to what extent does a photographer record and to what extent does he create an image? The second part was entitled "Money, Money, Money, Money," which was a panel discussion about commerce and art.

The NYPL described as: "In an era when creativity and innovation have a price tag and the lines between art and commerce are increasingly blurred, how do artists negotiate this terrain? Are commercial entities like Prada, Apple and Louis Vuitton modern-day Medicis or are these corporations and their consigliere simply bandits brokering on the fame of the artist? Is art in the service of commerce or vice versa?" The panel included creative directors and CEO's of magazines and fashion ad agencies, photographers, and co-founder of the Kate Spade label, Andy Spade. I thought it sounded interesting, but I ended up not going.

The concept did get me thinking, though, about how closely art and commerce are tied in our society. Let's say you write a brilliant novel. A brilliant novel that could change the lives of men everywhere, but with no popular appeal whatsoever. With a very small potential audience. What good is that, then? You have something brilliant, but something that a) no one will ever publish, and if someone does, b) no one will ever read it. Does art (or anything, for that matter) have value if it has no audience? And I mean outside the creator's self and close friends and family and whatnot - I guess one should at least be glad that his loved ones will experience it. But if, on a large scale, no one is affected by it, or experiences it, is it still important? I mean, sure, in theory, you should create for yourself. But once you create something beautiful, if there's no way for you to share it, what good does that do? Yet, should you keep a mass audience in mind when you create, so as to have the means to share it with others? And thinking that way, how many undiscovered masterpieces exist to no one's knowledge?

And outside of that, if you're going to make a living solely by committing yourself to your art, it must have some kind of popular appeal on one level or another. Otherwise, you'll never make any money, and won't be able to live without doing something else. Which is why I wish I never had to worry about money and could just do whatever I liked. Haha.

Sooze: That’s my worst fear. Making a sound and no one hears it.
– Eric Bogosian, subUrbia