Art, Money and Fame

For most Americans, art that does not make money is useless, which is why the National Endowment for the Arts is so poorly funded. ( I think it's something like $20 million a year, compared to $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq.) This is not to say i'm against artists making money, but should making money be the purpose of creating it? Perhaps that might be the artist's motivation, but i don't think a work should be judged by how much money it makes.

Seeking fame is another reason people make art, and i see nothing wrong with that, but i don't think the best artist is necessarily the most famous one. At the same time, i think many sincere artists shy away from the responsibility of promoting their work, and they have only themselves to blame if they lack recognition.

The truth is, if you aspire for greatness as an artist, you have to not only create great work but also get it into the public consciousness, and not many people can do both. In fact "success," which might be defined as achieving both fame and fortune, can actually be harmful to artistic growth, if the person becomes "spoiled" and also loses the perspective of an outsider. (And by the way, i dislike the whole concept of "outsider art.") On the other hand, some success — if not too early in one's career — can be a very good thing, as it encourages and supports the artist. I might add that very few artist receive fame only after they die, when it becomes impossible to do any more networking.

I truly admire the artist who is not afraid to do whatever it takes to be successful, which includes using people in various ways. (Sleeping your way to the top is a lot harder than it might be seem to those who haven't tried it.) A great artist tends to have a sense of mission that transcends all usual morality in a quest for immortal glory in the art itself, other people be damned.