Is it wrong to make art purely for money - Or is selling out a bad thing

[autisticdragonkin]

Many people believe that it is wrong for an artist to create a work purely for monetary reasons. I myself don't consider it to be a bad thing because I see it as simply a combination of commerce and art. But if one were to consider art to somehow be above commerce than the position makes more sense.

 

[Tookie]

Most of the great works of art from the Renaissance were created purely for money.

 

[女鬼]

Hell no. Even artists gotta eat.

Erst kommt das Fressen und dann kommt die Moral.

 

[AnOminous]

"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Samuel Johnson

Applies to art too.

 

[Forever Sunrise]

If you're making art without passion, solely to get a paycheck, it isn't art. If you're solely interested in making art for no monetary benefit at all, you aren't an artist; you're a hobbyist. Artists make money off their ability; they are justifiably rewarded for the effort and creative energy they expend in the pursuit of their life's work. There are people who make art solely for profit, even very financially successful people. But those same people are basically considered the equivalent of the Furry Fandom in the art world. This is coming from an art student.

 

[about:blank]

Most people who get into any vocation purely for the money or security are usually looked down upon, and art is no different. Is it wrong? Maybe for some people as individuals, but as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and it puts food on your table when there would otherwise be none, it can't really be "wrong" for you.

 

[AnOminous]

Most people who get into any vocation purely for the money or security are usually looked down upon, and art is no different. Is it wrong? Maybe for some people as individuals, but as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and it puts food on your table when there would otherwise be none, it can't really be "wrong" for you.

That's utter bullshit, though. Part of being a member of society at all is that your activities contribute to society, and part of the way that's measured is you're actually paid to do it.

Why should art be any different?

If you can't do whatever you want to do in a way that someone, somewhere, actually thinks it's worth money to pay you to do it, maybe you should find something else to do.

 

[Pikimon]

If you manage to trick an idiot rich person into buying your 3 paintings of just solid black paint for 20million dollars, then congrats.

 

[AnOminous]

Money is the ONLY ethical reason to make art.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Most people who get into any vocation purely for the money or security are usually looked down upon, and art is no different. Is it wrong? Maybe for some people as individuals, but as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and it puts food on your table when there would otherwise be none, it can't really be "wrong" for you.

From what I have studied, it seems to me this is a big failing of a lot of the new wave of artists/youtubers/animators. They're not interested in doing the nitty gritty side of business set up and whatnot. They don't want to know, they don't care.

And then wonder why the fuck they get scalped by less scrupulous people who are willing to do that "hard work" for them or never get anywhere whatsoever.

Artwork of any kind is a sign of a healthy, stable society (its able to afford such frivolities) periods in which artwork suffered usually occurs around the time of major societal or even civilization upheaval meant this method of work wasn't as viable as it used to be.

Spoiler: Minor Powerlevel

As someone going through the process of a business plan for the "big risk" of making artwork for money, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt this is the hardest damn thing I've undertaken in my entire bloody life. Not because it's "morally questionable" but because it's really hard to make sure things are right when yours and several friends futures are potentially riding on it.

 

[Mr Pizza]

It's not wrong, but I think if you're seriously only doing art for money it turns into a pretty shitty job. I like to doodle and draw sometimes (I suck, but whatevs) but I think if I had to draw say... an apple 40 times at 15 bucks an hour it would be a pretty dull job. Art seems like one of those deals where you really want to be inspired to keep going at.

 

[AssRock]

Considering that visual art is a legitimate occupation and career path, it's completely valid that an artist be able to turn a profit off of what is essentially years and years of practice and honing one's skill. Personally, as one who does make a living as an artist, it's pretty disingenuous to write off artwork created for profit as less than legitimate since most of the visual work we see and enjoy wasn't created for free and often to the specs of the individual client or company who retained the artist(s) for their work.

Art as a whole is pretty open to interpretation as it is, so even if an artist were to create something that's entirely passionless and purely for monetary gain (and let's face it, if you're an in-house artist or someone working in a studio, there will be projects you hate and will work on purely because it's your job), there will always be someone who sees it as art, and that validates it's existence as an art piece.

 

[Motherboard]

From an art student's perspective, no. If you're doing art only for money I suppose it can be pretty...I can't think of the right word, shallow isn't right, but it doesn't seem...enjoyable if that's all you do. At least do personal works too to enjoy yourself every now and again.

Artists have to eat too and being an artist isn't a very high-paying job, so I understand why they would sell out. I'm in no position to really judge what another chooses to do with their skill, that's on them, so if someone chooses to put their skill towards financial gain, so be it. It doesn't make them a "fake artist" or something. It just seems a little miserable.

 

[John Titor]

You're going to have to be more specific because 'art' is pretty vague. Concept art and illustration will no doubt be tied to business.

 

[Some JERK]

Most of the great works of art from the Renaissance were created purely for money.

The Mona Lisa, one of the most widely recognized and appreciated works of art ever created, was a commissioned work.

 

[nyess]

It's not if it's good art.

 

[Watcher]

Some really good art was made entirely for the money.

Like the original novel A Clockwork Orange was admitted by the author to have been made solely for a paycheque.

L. Frank Baum made Wizard of Oz sequels entirely because his adult books didn't sell, he was essentially shackled into making Oz books to feed himself.

Hell one of Marlon Brando's most famous roles was in Apocalypse now. He demanded 3.5 million for it, didn't memorize his lines, showed up severely overweight, and caused Coppola to film him in very creative ways to avoid him coming across like he really didn't give a fuck about the film. And it worked because he comes across like a mysterious Satan-like character as a result when he was originally written as a charismatic character.

Sometimes doing art solely for the money is a good thing. Like Sean Connery agreed to perform in the final James Bond film he was in, Diamonds are Forever. For 1.2 million Euros solely to found a Scottish performing arts funding company, that went on to fund future art pieces.

One of the most famous instances of an artist doing something purely for money was Sir Alec Guinness with Star Wars. He only agreed to play Obi Wan purely for the money, and he had a very negative opinion of the film. Later on after the trilogy was finished he regretted doing Star Wars since it overshadowed his other films, and vocally said he didn't respect it.

Ray Liotta admitted that he only voiced Tommy Vercetti in Grand Theft Auto Vice City purely for money. And that he never saw any footage or played the game in his life. And when he was asked if he could do the role again knowing it was going to sell extremely well what he'd do differently, he responded with "ask for more money".

Ron Perlman was asked in a Reddit AMA if he has ever played any of the Fallout games. Since he plays the narrator in them. And he responded saying he never has and that he doesn't play video games.

Orson Welles's last film role was as Unicron in the Transformers movie. He later said the only thing he knew about the film was that it was about "Toys killing each other".

"People ask me why I'm playing in this picture. The answer is simple: Money, dear boy." - Lawrence Olivier

When promoting Ender's Game on The Tonight Show, Jay Leno asked Ford about his involvement with The Expendables 3. Ford says, "They asked me if I wanted to be in the movie, they gave me a reason that I should be..."*Leno rubs his thumbs and fingers together, signifying "money", Ford nods.* "That's a good enough reason."

 

[Polexia Aphrodisia]

It depends on how seriously the artist takes themselves. If someone creates content for the sole purpose of making money, that's fine. But they can't go around saying "Art is my passion and I am a deep and tortured artist, my art comes from a corner of my soul" etc. If you are skilled at a certain medium and you know how to make it commercially successful, that's great, but remember that you are doing it for the money, and not for the thrill of creation and catharsis of the soul.