cybercoma Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 When Esi Edugyan won the Scotiabank Giller Prize this year, she made a comment about living in poverty working as an author. Her comment wasn't an expression of her personal experience, but one that seemed to garner a mutual response of headnods from other authors at the gala. Is capitalism the best system for art? It's the best system for generating massive wealth, which fosters technological advancements for things like film, media, and music. That's the plus side. On the other hand, does the limitation around who can actually afford to devote their life to their craft limit who creates art and what type of art is created? Are we sacrificing more substantial, transcendental, and challenging art for art that is designed only to drive consumption? What are some other pros and cons to artists having to operate within the capitalist system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Capitalism is horrible for art. I think it's a major weakness of capitalism actually. Profits mean companies will usually only fund what they think will be most profitable and popular. This means crap like Nickelback on the radio instead of a lot of amazing Indie bands that just aren't as marketable for record companies and radio stations. Same with movies, where mediocre blah stuff like Transformers and Avatar will get a 100 million dollar budget but a high-brow film with the same need for special effects would never get funded/released. Video game industry is similar, where rehashed sequels (Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Mario Kart) are released annually ad nauseum because many modern games need massive budgets so it's too risky for developers to make new IP's because it's much more risky to fail financially. You get the point. For books it's much less of a problem because risk is much lower if you publish a bad book since most of what need is just a smart writer with a computer and a printing press, compared to massive budgets and staff needed to make a film or Broadway show etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 When Esi Edugyan won the Scotiabank Giller Prize this year, she made a comment about living in poverty working as an author. Her comment wasn't an expression of her personal experience, but one that seemed to garner a mutual response of headnods from other authors at the gala. Is capitalism the best system for art? It's the best system for generating massive wealth, which fosters technological advancements for things like film, media, and music. That's the plus side. On the other hand, does the limitation around who can actually afford to devote their life to their craft limit who creates art and what type of art is created? Are we sacrificing more substantial, transcendental, and challenging art for art that is designed only to drive consumption? What are some other pros and cons to artists having to operate within the capitalist system? In a system you allude to, who’s to determine what is “Art” and what is the result of one just seeking a handout? I’m sure you, like I, have a different view of what we would consider interesting art and that’s fine, but how would society determine who get’s paid to create their “art” versus working in a coffee shop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I'm not sure how art could be fairly funded and paid for in anything but a capitalist system. Yeah, the art usually has to have a broad enough appeal to recoup the costs of producing it in a capitalist system, although occasionally people do willingly take a loss making art too. What alternatives are there? A communist system where a government committee judges what art/artist is worthy of funding? A welfare state where anyone can forsake their day job and spend their time making art, which others may or may not consider to be artful? A feudal system where rich lords commission artists to make the art that they specifically want? No system is perfect, but I don't see a better alternative to capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) OK, capitalism is a bad system for art. Being an artist is a choice. A choice people make knowing full-well that it does not pay a regular wage until you sell your works. There are arts funding programs by the gov't but that will never pay people a living wage to produce works of art that they can't sell. And it shouldn't! Hell, I'd be an artist and I can't draw a stick-man!! Or, they can have a dayjob and produce art as well. I know a struggling author who doesn't struggle so much because he is a graphic designer and makes decent money doing that.... while trying to get a book published. Alternatively, artists should start their own cooperatives and share their funds... an artist driven solution to a problem that exists because of the artist's choice to be an artist. Edited February 8, 2012 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Capitalism is horrible for art. I think it's a major weakness of capitalism actually. Profits mean companies will usually only fund what they think will be most profitable and popular. This means crap like Nickelback on the radio instead of a lot of amazing Indie bands that just aren't as marketable for record companies and radio stations. Same with movies, where mediocre blah stuff like Transformers and Avatar will get a 100 million dollar budget but a high-brow film with the same need for special effects would never get funded/released. Video game industry is similar, where rehashed sequels (Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Mario Kart) are released annually ad nauseum because many modern games need massive budgets so it's too risky for developers to make new IP's because it's much more risky to fail financially. You get the point. For books it's much less of a problem because risk is much lower if you publish a bad book since most of what need is just a smart writer with a computer and a printing press, compared to massive budgets and staff needed to make a film or Broadway show etc. Or, it could be a major strength. I'm not sure what is on your radio dial, but I can hear plenty of indie music. As it happens, it is available on a station largely paid for by subscribers. Nickleback is no less valid than an indie band, it is a conceit to think that either is more valid than the other. (and for the record, I'd sooner thrust hot pokers in my eyes than listen to Nickleback.) There are also plenty of low budget inide films and they share one thing with high budget films: inconsistency. Some are complete crap, some are gems. You cannot legislate or dictate taste in art or music or film. You cannot force people to love something they don't, and you also should not oblige them to pay for it. If somebody other than the artist thinks it is good, they'll buy it. If nobody other than the artist likes it, I guess they need to stick with that day job like other people with hobbies. Shrug. My hobby is international travel. I could write poorly rendered stories about it. Why won't society support that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Are we sacrificing more substantial, transcendental, and challenging art for art that is designed only to drive consumption?Through the ages art has always been produced for entertainment. This implies it must appeal to the people with the money to pay for it and the time to enjoy it. This is the way it should be. So, IMO, the capitalist is working fine for art funding.What you want to call "substantial, transcendental, and challenging art" is actually a call for funding of entertainment that appeals to you personally. It seems to be driven by elitism and a presumption that the entertainment that you like is some how more worthy of funding than the art that actually gets produced. The failure of the capitalist system to produce this kind of "art" is not a problem. Edited February 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Are we sacrificing more substantial, transcendental, and challenging art for art that is designed only to drive consumption? yes. Nothing says it more clearly than having someone emphasize the "entertainment" value of art! Art for enrichment is soooo commie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 What are some other pros and cons to artists having to operate within the capitalist system? The pro is making a living or earnig some level of income doing something that you love to do. There are no cons... because there is no other system for artists to make money by doing art. I know people who try and make a living from their art. And there are those who have dayjobs and sell their art for extra income. Every artist who wants to earn money from their art-works operate within the capitalist system. Always have. How do you create a product for sale without being in the "capitalist system"? The only artists who don't operate within that system are those who create art for the sake of creating art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) In a system you allude to... What you want to call "substantial, transcendental, and challenging art" is actually a call for funding of entertainment that appeals to you personally. All I'm doing is asking questions. Here, you guys are making up my position and arguing against it. Amusing, but ultimately pointless because I didn't allude to anything nor am I calling for anything either. I'm just trying to think about how art fits in with a capitalist society, perhaps considering the historical changes the West has gone through and how art has changed in that time. What I'm not doing is suggesting that any one time or another is better or worse. In fact, there are strengths to a capitalist economy that benefit art. There are also weaknesses, however, and I find it interest that it's incredibly taboo to talk about those. I mean, so much so that The_Squid writes, "There are no cons... because there is no other system." Not to single you out The_Squid, but this is faulty logic. No alternatives does not actually mean the current system has no flaws. All of this stemmed from a conversation I had with a Canadian author yesterday. The vast majority of people that try to be authors, actors, musicians, painters, basically any kind of artist are struggling. Yet, art is very important and it seems that the economic system may have a profound impact on the type of art that is created. An artist has to be able to afford to make art. Even when we weren't in a capitalist system only certain kinds of art would be created. Works were often financed by monarchies and the wealthy. Moreover, many artists were not popular in their time, but became popular later: ie, Thoreau, Poe, Emily Dickinson, Kafka, Van Gogh, Bach, and Gauguin. We're talking some monumental works of art here that may not have been possible, or at the very least less likely, under the modern capitalist system because they lacked the popularity to make their works profitable in their time. I think it's worth thinking about how the economic system relates to the types of art that are readily available and the types of people that become artists. That's not to say that a Communist system would be better. In fact, I don't know where the Communism thing is even coming from. Indeed, the Communist system would have its own pros and cons. One of the cons being complete state control over who is funded and for what types of art. This, of course, leads to all sorts of other questions. What is art? What is art's purpose? etc. Edited February 8, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Why would capitalism care about art ? Only if there's something to commodify and sell. The more you sell, the less challenging your art is, the more it becomes "entertainment". Well-done popular art is actually a rare and beautiful thing. Certainly, it's in society's best interests to put some tiny amount of money towards the arts. We spend very little today (less than a dollar a day each) and we seem to get a lot for it. Artists who aren't selling people art as commodity will need to find a benefactor or work that day job... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) All of this stemmed from a conversation I had with a Canadian author yesterday. The vast majority of people that try to be authors, actors, musicians, painters, basically any kind of artist are struggling.All that says is the demand for these kinds of services is less than the supply and they probably should be looking for something else to do. A different funding mechanism will not do anything about the mismatch between supply and demand. Lots of people choose careers that pay the bills and pursue their passions as hobbies.Yet, art is very important and it seems that the economic system may have a profound impact on the type of art that is created.There are only two economic systems: capitalism and communism. Feudalism and socialism are hybrids. Capitalism tends to produce a lot more art than communism. I think that answers your question. This, of course, leads to all sorts of other questions. What is art? What is art's purpose? etc.Entertainment. What other purpose could it possibly have? Edited February 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Absolutely. Now if you asked this question on something like virtuous careers that help the needy, I'd say no. Because there is little money in it but, it is often hard and trying work, especially with troubled teens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Entertainment. What other purpose could it possibly have? Edification, learning, challenging onesself.... growing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Edification, learning, challenging onesself.... growing... Spiritual growth, history, architecture, design... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Edification, learning, challenging onesself.... growing... ah, c'mon... just how can you expect to fit enrichment... edification... learning... challenging, etc., into a right-wing/conservative's commodity based view of the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 ah, c'mon... just how can you expect to fit enrichment... edification... learning... challenging, etc., into a right-wing/conservative's commodity based view of the world? Reminds me of the Calgary clown ban ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I dont think it makes much difference at all. Capitalism encourages a lot of watered down consumer crap, made specifically to sell. In many cases it also means that since artists dont have much "capital" they depend on marketing giants who take most of the money. Beyond that, people make art because of how their brain works. Weve been doing it for thousands of years, and we will carry on regardless of economic system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Edification, learning, challenging onesself.... growing...All you are doing is describing types of entertainment enjoyed by some people. It is still entertainment (i.e. giving people something that they derive enjoyment from). If something is not enjoyed it is not art. If something is boring it is not art. Edited February 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 All you are doing is describing types of entertainment enjoyed by some people. It is still entertainment (i.e. giving people something that they derive enjoyment from). If something is not enjoyed it is not art. If something is boring it is not art. Well, sure, you can define entertainment to mean "doing something" too. Learning is entertainment, then, as is working, exercising, eating, sleeping, having sex... I can turn it back around and stretch the definition of "enjoy" to include physical pain (such as the kind you get from exercise, or from watching Wayne and Shuster) or things that make you cry (such as "Old Yeller", or Wayne and Shuster). So, everything is everything and I hope I entertained you. ( I have my top hat and tails on and am tap dancing as I type this.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Learning is entertainment, then, as is working, exercising, eating, sleeping, having sex...Learning is only entertainment if you are doing because you want to - not because you have to. The distinction is important because people often learn because the have to. I do know that saying art is entertainment will get people who have an elistist view of art annoyed because they don't want their elistist forms of art lumped in with reality TV. But that does not change the fundemental purpose of art is to provide enjoyment/entertainment to the viewer/reader/listener. Edited February 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 If something is boring it is not art. your comment is not artful. by the by, what determines whether art is boring; ergo, in your view, "not art"? Stephen Harper: characterized the arts community as government-subsidized whiners... Ordinary folks don't care about arts: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) by the by, what determines whether art is boring; ergo, in your view, "not art"?It obviously changes from person to person which is my point. There is no absolute standard of "art". It is an individual opinion and therefore it is best funded by individual choices. Government funded art is simply an excuse to subsidize entertainment for the minority at the expense of the majority. Edited February 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Spiritual growth, history, architecture, design... personal expression, subversion, experimentation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 personal expression, subversion, experimentation....Entertainment for people who get off on that kind of stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.