Submitted by Martin Regnen on Thu, 10/02/2008 - 20:34.
A journalist with integrity should publish information which benefits the public even if this would damage his career or access to sources. Likewise, if a politician with integrity existed that politician would push policies which are good for the entire nation even if they are bad for that politican's personal finances, popularity, power etc. An artist with integrity is, likewise, unconcerned with financial benefits, stardom or sex and is instead guided by... by what, exactly? Certainly not by bringing the greatest possible benefit to the broadest possible section of the public. True artists are not supposed to be interested in the public. The artist is supposed to satisfy only himself. But he is only allowed to satisfy himself in ways which don't produce art which the wrong kind of people would enjoy. Satisfying himself by producing art which is liked by the right people (elite critics and other members of big-city arts-and-culture social circles) is fine, though.
Let's look at the consequences of openly violating the rules of integrity in these fields. A politician who is demonstrated to have no integrity will have enormous difficulty finding employment as a politician; similarly with a journalist such as Jasyon Blair. Even Barry Bonds found himself unemployable as a baseball player because he is suspected of violating the integrity of baseball - in other words, of boosting his own career and statistics in a way which reduced the value of baseball to the public. Yet an artist who has no integrity will still be able to get the best-paying jobs. Many of the people who might hire you prefer to work with "sellouts" and "hacks" because they are more reliable and easier to work with than "true artists." You just can't get the low-paying high-status positions in the highbrow arts.
Why is the definition of integrity so different in the arts? Why is it so damn weird? Whom does it benefit? Let's take a look at the effect of this definition. It divides people who produce art into two kinds: the despised commercial hacks and the "true artists." The only people who have the incentive to become "true artists" in this system are either the independently wealthy who are too lazy to get a real job or failures who simply cannot succeed in the "real" (non-arts) world. This means the highbrow segment of all the arts is dominated by losers who are obsessed with social climbing. At worst an entire art form becomes a federal jobs program for these useless people. The cost of maintaining integrity also keeps those from more humble backgrounds who have practical concerns such as the need to feed themselves or their families out of the highbrow arts. Seen in this light, artistic integrity is nothing more than one more component of elite social signaling.
Is that what we want? Does that make for better art? I see how it might make for worse art by pushing many hard-working, skilled and talented into commercial arts or into non-arts fields, but I fail to see how it might make for better art. I suppose if you're a religious Pagan who believes in literal Muses who will only bestow inspiration upon those whose heart is in the right place, you could make a religious argument. But I'm not buying it. Cole Porter who wrote arguably the best music of the XX century admitted that "my sole inspiration is a telephone call from a producer." If any Muses exist they apparently didn't have a problem with that approach.
What is to be done? Can artistic integrity ever be turned into a useful concept again? How can we create healthy incentives to create good art? I admit that I don't have the solution and I don't think MTV does, either. But the first step is admitting that we have a problem.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
The elite who 'sponsor' and
The elite who 'sponsor' and otherwise 'patronise' the arts and with that in mind I mean the 'fine arts' i.e. contemporary art are ususally that moneyed elite who like to have art that reflects their aspiration and that exists as an 'emblem' of their modern and fashionable status.
Those who have real integrity with 'real art' and provide a cultural incentive for its production are few.
As the 'Uvani' above says patronage of the arts in one shape or form has worked across teh arts in the past.I am not here seperating 'applied arts' from 'fine arts'. Patronage is difficult to come by and dont expect it from local authorities or instituions set up to fund the arts as these don't always attend to true creativity but more 'issue based' art and art with theoretical trends or art that is modern for the sake of it i.e. asking the question what is art?.
Many cultures and many creative activities in the past and to some extent in the present, have a Transcendent element besides the practical, functional aspects (pertaining to craft objects).
I think that artists cant appeal to everyone but rather different art may appeal to different groups. Yet there is a universal element in true art that is part of that Transcendental aspect that for me is central to a work of art and that includes architecture, three dimensional design, ceramics , music, painting and interior design.
The economic rationale shouldn't dominate i.e. work done for the sake of cheapness, of mass appeal and again for making the largest profit. Funding of art making whilst keping ones artistic integrity as in the modern world as perhaps in the ancient one, has been somewhat a difficult balance. But inspite of this art as been produced in favourable and less favourable situations and yes, some hasn't been produced at all.
Even in certain restraints artistic integrity can be realised and sometimes its compromised.
"The wrong kind of people"
Rednecks are the classic example of "the wrong kind of people". You can't make anything rednecks enjoy and be considered a true artist.
Rednecks
Well how very narrow minded. i myself am not a redneck , but they are and can be very proud intelligent people. stereotyping any group of people is wrong. And let me tell you do not underestimate all from any one total group. Lets take your hardcore redneck and you , strip you both to your skivvies and drop you miles into the forest, whereas you may not survive the redneck will shop up back from where you took him from well fed with a smile on thier face and a six pack in thier hand while you suffer rot and starve in the wilderness
Re: Rednecks
He wasn't insulting rednecks, he was saying that the artistic tastes of the wealthy elite define themselves, in part, by being something a redneck couldn't enjoy no matter what... and once they see one of their cultural tastes being enjoyed by said redneck, they would abandon it immediately. Unless they figure out a way to enjoy it "ironically", of course.
I admit, that made me laugh
I myself am a redneck, or at least the European equivalent thereof. From a small town, grow part of my own food, disliked by city folk for being uncultured and badly dressed and all that. Anybody who makes stuff we like will never be respected by arts-and-culture circles because to them we are definitely "the wrong kind of people".
If it's narrow-minded to point out that our society's elites look down on us, then I'll be happy to call myself narrow-minded.
RE: artistic integrity
There are many different kinds of artists. There is no shame in being an artisan, like a potter or blacksmith or stonecarver, who creates simple "art" for their living and whose creations are designed for the public good. And then there are the great artists, who have created their art, basically, for the aristocracy or elite (in multiple or contrasting definitions of the terms). And most of our most cherished historical artists worked by commission or patronage, being supported by a wealthy nobleman or by the Church... So creating art for your "work" is not inherently a bad thing; the great artist who is so possessed by his creativity that he furiously creates in his spare time while also working to support himself, etc, is a familiar character; but realistically, the quality of his art would be better if he could devote 100% of his time to his creations.
The problem, like many social problems these days, can be attributed to populism. Since the crowd rules and the works of great artists couldn't be appreciated by most of them, all public art is created by varying degrees of the utilitarian type of artist, who is given a task (appealing to all) and dutifully completes it- and without the positive and unifying aspect of culture, which gives artisans of lesser creativity the blueprint by which to still make positive works, it all turns out ugly and more or less worthless. Modern architects, entertainers like playwrights and actors, public sculptors and city planners all fall into this category. Meanwhile, the "elite" (read- wealthy) consciously or subconsciously know they need their own forms of art to distinguish them from the crowd, but since the so-called elite are often as dumb and confused as the general populace, the artists who serve their needs either turn out to be crafty salesmen or talentless social climbers whose degenerate works "fit in" because of low and perverted standards.
And since the abovementioned "artists" are the only ones who stand a chance of making a living off their work, the truly and intensely creative and intelligent people are left behind. These people still create art because it's what they were meant to do, but their creations either go unknown or are appreciated only by the fraction of people that are intelligent and sensitive enough to understand it. This is really not much different from historical times, except that now since the elite in terms of intelligence and sensitivity no longer have any power, they don't have the time, resources, or ability to support these artists but minimally. In some circles, like metal, this seems to be viewed positively, since it weeds out those who are interested in material gain over transcendent creation. But in terms of pure quality, perhaps the art would be better if the artists didn't have to worry about buying food, paying rent, etc. The patronage system is a good one, it should be encouraged. But it only works when there is both a cultural incentive towards true artistic creation, and an elite populace who are intelligent enough to appreciate it.
"But he is only allowed to
"But he is only allowed to satisfy himself in ways which don't produce art which the wrong kind of people would enjoy. "
Who exactly would be the "wrong kind of people"?