Beholden To The Muse

 

Because art is a very bad word in this country... a very bad word. -- John Cassavetes, (A Constant Forge)

When art is adopted and subsequently funded by the major entertainment industry, the creative act must be the criterion, otherwise the substantial risk is that the power of the artistic act will become compromised. In order for art to reach its full cultural and creative potential, it needs to be allowed to flourish and germinate without creative interference by profit based businesses in the artistic decision making process. Indeed, when a multi-billion dollar corporation or conglomerate adopts an artistic movement with the intent of marketing it for profit, the art can become highly affected and manipulated. When prerogatives which are more concerned with fiscal, rather than artistic success gain control, the art can become inanimate, dilute, dormant and ineffectual -in terms of cultural change. While the art is still a product, it is an inferior product. It ceases to be creatively alive because the artistic strength becomes significantly weakened. This is often the case but there are a few exceptions. One example of when this interference can become “good”, is when it affects a greater common goal; e.g the One campaign spearheaded by Bono of U2 (http://www.one.org/). Nonetheless, this is an exception rather than the rule nowadays. Because there is a very fine line between the subsidization of the arts and the total control of them for financial, political or authoritarian gain; because this line is so fine, it is imperative that in the subsidization of art the creative act remain paramount.

Major media and entertainment has effectively compromised the potency of art. The industry has become such a corporate behemoth that the ratifying power of art has been perverted, diluted, commodified or disregarded altogether. In past centuries, the power of art was something that common masses could utilize for radical cultural change. For example, the paintings of Jacques-Louis David and Eugene Delacroix both influenced radical changes in French culture (Intro to Fine Art, chap 6). Another example is the jazz and punk movements which occurred in 20th Century America which were propelled by the works of American musicians such as John Coltrane, Miles Davis and Ornette Coleman, and Sun Ra -to name just a few (Art and Culture). These are examples of art that not only helped to express the opinions and feelings of the respective groups from which they came, but also helped to create new paradigms and facilitate cultural change. This is something which is not principle to the capitalistic world view -indeed, it often seems as if experimentation is wholly discouraged by the major entertainment industry in favor of proven formulas, algorithms and past successes.

In an interview, Van Morrison stated (about the record industry): “The music business has changed...and there’s so much hype these days that it’s very difficult for someone like me... Everything is about commercialism these days, not music. (Mojo, April, 2006, pg.42) Art that is new, alive, and fresh, often comes into public attention under the guises of the “avant-garde”; inevitably, this avant-garde art will be accepted, or at least recognized, and at this juncture it is not unlikely that the major entertainment business will become interested and involved. The crucial thing to uphold, in the event that profit based business does become involved, is that the creative integrity and freedom of the artist is not compromised in lieu of financial gain. When this does happen a serious side-effect occurs, which is that people’s artistic and cultural conceptions are subverted aesthetically and dumbed-down in favor of solid financial returns, all in the interest of business. This action creates a social paradigm which devalues the artistic process and stalls change in society. That is not to say that artists are never financially motivated, but because the current corporate mentality does nothing to discourage this, it makes the choice to put money over art easier. In his book, In Praise of Commercial Culture, Tyler Cowen (1998) states:”Artists are motivated by creative self-expression, fame, and money, but owners of capital goods are usually motivated by profit alone... Finding no other reward, the shareholders pursue profit maximization and push for mass audience appeal.”(pg. 41) In addition, Van Morrison verifies this by stating: “I want to do my music in really small venues. But my agent doesn’t get me those kind of gigs, because he’d rather get me gigs where he makes more money!” (Mojo, April, 2006, pg.42) This statement is the perfect example of how the modern artist -who’s motivations (hopefully) extend beyond the mundane acquisition of money- is paradoxically at odds with the industry’s mentality.

But what is good about the involvement of large corporate financiers in art? It is too much of a generalization to say that the entertainment industry is something that only sucks the life out of the artistic process? In reality, the process is quite a dynamic one and usually the system tends to benefit more than just the artist alone. The argument can be made that (Cowen) “Capitalist wealth supports the accouterments of of artistic production”; (pg.19) Absolutely this is true, Painters need to buy paints and canvas, musicians need to buy instruments, strings, etc. Advertisements and promotions should be made, rents must be paid; expenses arise. But these needs are basically utilitarian. Where things become sticky is when the financier expects the creator to compromise their creative freedom in order to receive financial support or, even worse, to make more money. Again Van Morrison gives a good explication of the proper mentality regarding subsidizing one’s art. “When I started out, commercialism was about making a living.” (Mojo, pg.42) This is the slippery slope which the modern artist must function within --that is to say, what is enough money to make art? Where does the profit spill over into the realm of the superfluous activity of sheer capitalism for capitalism’s sake? The answer is not linear, it is situationally based; in other words, it is conditional. -however, if an artist’s (reasonable) expenses have been met and they are able to ensure that they can continue their work comfortably this is a good equilibrium point. When an artist is not free to indulge their artistic proclivity, they are basically limited, therefore they are unable to fully affect artistic and cultural change; indeed, they are not only not functioning to the best of their abilities, they’re disseminating the artistic and cultural change that the record, film, media company wants them to (Cowen, 1998, pg 41). This is grave disservice to the betterment of humankind. In fact it is this mentality that limits the ability of society to make more effective and radical change to global issues like the environment, politics and corruption.

Throughout history, there have been those who have realized this facet of the entertainment industry and have worked within it, subverted it, and created an alternate creative forum outside of it. A perfect example of this, a director who undermined and manipulated the major film industry to create a genuine body of work, was the late John Cassavetes. Cassavetes, an actor/writer/director, financed his independent films by working as an actor in major Hollywood pictures such as Rosemary’s Baby, The Dirty Dozen, etc. He realized the structure of the entertainment industry, that it was something semi-inexorable, and he made certain calculated concessions in order to make his artistic vision possible. “I became an actor in order to finance the films I wanted to make.” (A Constant Forge, 2000) He was able to compartmentalize and distinguish lines of demarcation in regard to his commercial work and to his real art --this flexibility shows a realistic solution to the commercial stranglehold the entertainment industry has on cinema. However, Cassavetes never compromised his ideologies or artistic vision and he held artistic freedom as the ultimate criterion. However, he was realistic in that he held no pretensions that independent artists would make a huge, immediate, change in the industry; Cassavetes (2004) stated:

"However, the probability that a resurrection of the industry through individual ex- pression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood’s departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to com promise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it." (¶ 6)

What this sort of mentality communicates to subsequent generations of artists, is that being true to one’s artistic vision is okay; not only is it okay, it is necessary, crucial, and paramount to the existence of real art. It also communicates the message that artistic success doesn’t necessarily equate exorbitant financial success or fame. But what if the people of new ideas do submit to the pressures of the industry? Cassavetes also (2004) had a solid opinion of what this process produces:

"In Hollywood, the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to past reference of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance."(¶ 7)

In this event, the artist becomes answerable to the prerogatives of the industry, (i.e: money and power) and they transform into something that is not an artist, they make their decisions based on business, not on art. Cassavetes championed the responsibility of the artist in this matter; he refused to suffer the opinions of those who would differ to a mentality of victimization:

"The answer must come from the artist himself. He must become aware that the fault is his own, that art and the respect due his vocation as an artist are his own responsibility. He must, therefore, make the producer realize, by whatever means [are] at his disposal, that only by allowing the artist full and free creative expression will the art and the business of motion pictures survive." (¶ 9)

Art is the natural reflex of the human condition; contrary to popular belief, there is nothing inherently arcane about the artistic process, it is as natural to create for humans as it is to breathe; why some people think that one has to be some sort of savant in order to be an artist is largely a result of a distortion of the reality by the entertainment industry and those who would seek to make a profit from this categorization -this is yet another example of how societal conceptions have been manipulated in the pursuit of money. By perpetuating the myth of the artist abstracted from normal society, the longevity of the current entertainment industry is perpetuated. Making the artist an anomaly or something to be worshiped, creates a demand for something which is seemingly “rare”; this is not the case. In order for society to unconditionally accept the reality of the artist as something normal and wholly attainable, the whole entertainment industry needs to either be restructured or done away with. However, it is also incumbent on the artist to take their work seriously and dedicate time and effort to the rigorous exploration and development of their art.

A concept rooted in the tradition of Indian theatre and Vedic Psychology is that of the rasa -literally,”sentiment”- or “the performer’s and especially the spectator’s aesthetic experience.(Meyer-Dinkgräfe) This Eastern concept is something that is largely non-existent -or at the very most, subconscious- in Western entertainment and art. The collective aesthetic experience is not something we readily cherish in modern day society. Indeed, the word sentiment seems to be somewhat pejorative nowadays, but perhaps this theory holds a potential route of transformation for the current state of entertainment and art? That is to say, perhaps by realizing the collective-ness of the artistic process we, as a culture, can retrieve aesthetics back from the kitsch and dross of the media and marketing world. Perhaps this polemic seems too idealistic? too naive? indeed, perhaps this argument seems wholly unattainable given the current state of art? If this is how this argument comes across, it only stands to illustrate further the very real debasement that exists today. It remains to be seen if there is any real way out of the current capitalistic hole that we have allowed ourselves into as of late? If there is to be a clarion call, or even a meek whisper, it will come from art.

The real tragedy regarding the current state of art in the US is that we have sacrificed our art for material wealth, affluence and the fulfillment of the ego; moreover we have exported this ideology to the world. Kenneth Anger, an experimental filmmaker and artistic pioneer, who also recognized the state of the entertainment industry and worked outside of it, stated: “... America is the Pleasure Dome of the world... the materialistic dream is so strong... there’ll always be a penalty to pay for these artificial paradises.” (2004, chap.4) What Anger is basically saying here is that, as a nation embroiled in the pursuit of material and luxury, we have forsaken something higher, this being the pursuit and creation of art as a necessary human function, something which facilitates a deeper human connection, regardless of profit.

Indeed, art, in all of its forms, has become commodity. A zenith of this “art as commodity” mentality happened in the New York art scene of the 1980’s; a sure example of a once pure artist who allowed his Cassavetes-ian “responsibility” to art to waver, in favor of financial gain, was Jean-Michel Basquiat. Marc Mayer, (2005) director of the Musée D’art Contemporain De Montreal writes:

"...eighties artists were blessedly “post-modern” and quite happy to create commodities with their own hands that others might fetishize to the point of sale... the market returned noisily to the new art, expanding to a newsworthy degree with collectors tripping over each other to buy out whole shows, each successive auction season bringing more astounding results for the work of young artists."

This is the zeitgeist within which the young Basquiat prospered and effectively compromised himself away from his artistic purity, but he also, for whatever reasons, allowed himself to become commodified in this way. Basquiat’s work is an excellent example of how a true artist can be led astray in a corporate economy; his oeuvre is a categorical example of the rise and fall of the modern artist. However, Basquiat generally refused to take responsibility for his part in the whole fiasco of his career, instead, he hid behind drugs, money, a mentality of victimization, and his exceedingly formulaic --yet moribund-- art making process --pumping out marketable paintings, until eventually he died, broken and (perhaps) used up creatively.

This latter mentality, is the reality of the economic modus operandi of art. It is unethical, heartless, and sees artisans as a disposable commodity; this is not okay. It is a model that grinds artists into dust for various reasons. Notable examples are Jack Kerouac, Ernest Hemmingway, Kurt Cobain, Prince, Tom Petty, Alexander McQueen, Taylor Hawkins from the Foo Fighters and many others who were not famous or successful, in all walks of art; artists who worked so hard for their dreams and to manifest their ideas and due in part to the demands and vicissitudes of the industry were worn out, strung out and/ or mentally ill. These examples stand to boldly underline the need for the entire corporate world needing a massive spiritual reawakening and that a definitive sea-change is in order. Given that we as a society today have such a material based culture, it is important to make every effort to purchase things consciously, that is with an intent of their utility or by acknowledging their facilitation of a higher purpose; one should never buy art with the intent of it being something solely profitable; indeed, money should not be the ultimate goal of any venture; money provides a distraction, an avenue of miscommunication, it is a way of hiding from a deeper understanding of the universe and ourselves. John Cassavetes (2004) said:

“Money is the last refuge of people who have been scared by life, who’s only way to survive is to acquire as much money and power as they can to protect themselves, but from what?” (A Constant Forge) Indeed, even Cassavetes fell prey to the grind of trying to make his art in such a difficult world. But at least he tried to stay true to his vision.

The ultimate art extends beyond nationalism, beyond borders, beyond commodity, it essentially becomes a work of the people; that is, it becomes it’s own entity, a tangible piece of work which is extant -physically and conceptually- on an international level. In order for this to occur, some sort of marketing and             promotion of the work must be affected. This usually means that money is necessary to accomplish this. So this means that a company or patron(s) with sufficient financial means are necessary to facilitate things. However, a clear line must be drawn in regard to how this financial-backer operates and what sort of influence, if any, they have over creative matters. Schedules and expectations of productivity and promotion should be based on preserving the physical and mental health of the artist; insuring that they have a long and meaningful career. Complete creative control should rest solely with the artist. It is imperative to the further development of society that the artist and art stop being seen as a product but instead, as seeds to be nurtured, so they can fulfill their complete potential outside of and beyond their status as a product. Corporations and financiers should be as beholden to the muse as the artists themselves. What this means, in relation to the creation of art, is that marketing and promotion might occur after or completely separate from the artistic process --even if this means that financial gains may be lessened, or that the sharing or creation of the art is a slow and difficult process; because the profit is not the bottom line, the creative process is the bottom line, art is the bottom line.

References

Art & Culture. (2006). Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/home

Cassavetes, J. (2004). What’s wrong with Hollywood. United
States: The Criterion Collection: John Cassavetes: Five Films. (Supplemental text).(Original work published in Film Culture no 19, 1959)

Cowen, T. (1998). In Praise of Commercial Culture. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Doggett, P. (2006, April) Van Morrison Interview. Mojo Magazine, 149.

Hutchison, A. L. (2004). Kenneth Anger. London: Black Dog Publishing.

Introduction to Fine Art: Study Guide. (2001). Chap 6, Reason and Revolution, Jacques-Louis David & Eugene Delacroix. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from:

http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/f01/art105-6.html

Kiselyak, C. (2004). A Constant Forge. [Motion picture]. United States:Castle Hill Productions

Mayer, M. (2005). Basquiat in History. Basquiat. (pp. 42). New York: Brooklyn Museum.

Meyer-Dinkgräfe,D. (1999). Performance and Consciousness, Consciousness and the Concept of Rasa. Performing Arts International, 1.4, 103-115.