Replies: 26 Comments
on Friday, December 23rd, lee1boyd@yahoo.com">Lee said
I was at a local college event in Northern Ireland when the principal of the college started to talk about the "creative industry" and the infrustructure of business in producing art. She went on to applaud the virtues of the students talent but linked everything back to the success of artists to financial success. This is most worrying
I think because art takes more investment of the mind than it does of money, art is something that provokes us into thinking in ways nothing else does and sadly our society likes to water down for easy comsumpsion. Dont get me wrong there is nothing wrong with money but when it determins what we do then I would argue that that would be the time to use the term "selling out" but its a personal view only. one I keep to myself because even work that is produced in this way can still inspire. Look at the world in which you are in conntact with , with better eyes and you will see integrity and inspiration and creativity in many more forms than just Art.
Some business's and corporations are there to support us holding out a hand. There motives may be self promotive or genuine, If it helps you in what ever you create or do to shake that hand, and no you havent sold out your just utilising whats available to you to carry on.
on Tuesday, December 20th, Brad Michael Moore said
Kelly,
I like anyone who uses the word, "Balderdash." I feel, if your client's wants fall into the possibilities of your imagination, then it's no different than if your ideas came from other inspirations. Be it from a book on some artist that influences you - or a Bio-flick or dramatic rendition of film... We look, read, listen, dream - and from our day's of learning and redefining - we modify - our work transforms to meet our ever-changing views. Changing the texture of a bronze sculpture is a challenge in itself and part of the process of becoming more familiar within your medium. Gabby has her point too – but I think its more about your own personal approach to art. We all have our own sensitivities - they are all different. Go with what motivates you and steer clear of what doesn’t.
on Monday, December 19th, Kelly said
Balderdash. My situation and yours are different. I was not asked to repeat a work I had already done -- with minor changes. I had over 99% total free reign in my creativity, creating totally new compositions out of my head. We experienced a win-win situation. My collector did not pay in advance and was free to not buy a work inspired, in part, by his request. I did not give up my voice. And I certainly did not sell out. My point was that artists are often our own worst enemies -- why do we spend so much time judging and criticizing other artists who try to earn their keep doing a job they love?
on Sunday, December 18th, gabriella said
Kelly; it would be better to have given your collector a lump of clay, a session of work at the foundry and have told him to make his figure " more textured , not too thin, not too muscuclar". The client as Goldilocks is amusing, but this story is too similar to a man who once asked if i could make a particular composition in another combination of colours. To which the obvious answer is - nope, the colour means as the colour is, and what you get is the result of a great deal of consideration.
on Sunday, December 18th, Kelly Borsheim said
I once had a collector who bought a bronze of a male nude and requested that I make several more compositions. His requirements: create smaller works, more texture than the first piece he bought, not too muscular and not too thin of a figure. That's it.
Some of my friends accused me of selling out and I heard the usual, "I am sure glad I do not have to depend on selling because I do not want my art to change because of money." Blah, blah, blah.
My work is about the nude human figure. My collector was not limiting me very much. I sculpted ideas that were mine anyway. He loved them and bought them. I do not understand this new "openness" that says we must not limit ourselves. One boy told me "Kelly, don't make that stone be a figure. It might be something else and you are limiting it." Creativity is problem solving. A problem is a word describing limitations. Creativity without limitations is spewing. When a client gives suggestions, it is just that. When an artwork becomes more someone else's idea than mine, perhaps only then would I worry that I might be selling out. But frankly, I am not in a financial situation that allows me to know what that is.
on Friday, December 16th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said
Others are not calling the shots with regard to your own work. You are the only one responsible for what happens to you. It is just an environment, after all...you just don't go into the desert without a little water, or to New York without a little street smarts. Play the game, for sure, but it's up to you to play it well.
on Friday, December 16th, Michael Fornadley said
Would market forces and selling out be considered the same thing? When does an artist start to make decisions in their art to comply with the market place? Could be that when you start to dive into becoming a full time professional artist relying solely on your ability to sell you can not but produce just a product. Whether it is painting beautiful people on the West Coast or the latest fad on the East Coast, could come up the argument that artists in the middle states might be producing more diverse and interesting works because they are not driven to keep their market share in a dog eat dog environment.
Is it possible that the problem is not with the artists who are struggling with selling, but with the taste and the ability to the art buying public to understand challenging works. The gallery owners are in it to make money, if they feel that the work will not sell on their clients, no way is it hanging on their walls. Most of them appear to be suffering from the "Picasso" complex, getting a young artist who shows potential with the hope of cashing in if they make it. That is why everybody is searching for that cash cow over the horizon, most art buying is investment anyway, particularly the high end ones. Problem with that is that work is being ignored or dismissed on their market appeal, let alone if the artist does not fit the cookie cutter track record of commercial success. Really a silly game it is, but face it if you want to make a living at this you got to play, others are calling the shots.
on Thursday, December 15th, Patrick said
Ahh, even after the well thought-out points posted here, we still end up with someone pointing a finger at some ubiquitous group and whispering "Sell-Out!" What pray tell is a chameleon-like attitude? Art itself is a chameleon, so how can you be around art without changing? Even bad art changes people. Besides, though it is an unartsy term, "market forces" compel all artists to change or be left behind.
on Wednesday, December 14th, Kelly Borsheim said
I have a few observations that perhaps differ from the above.
Since we are each unique, how am I to know if an artist has sold out unless
1) he told me so (and I chose to believe him)
2) I was deeply intimate with him and believed I knew his heart.
Like it or not, our culture defines value in terms of money and time. Why do we seem so ashamed or disgusted with the idea that if someone appreciates what we create, then we should expect a reasonable amount of that person/entity's time or money? Since when does the title of artist absolve us from being financially responsible citizens of the world? And that sometimes for someone to appreciate what we have created or want to create, we have to first tell him that we exist and show our ideas to him. And even explain why he needs or desires the execution of our ideas.
Why do artists seem to accept the notion that we are supposed to be content with our artistic-ness and "talent" and that should be enough -- that idea that we won't stop creating because we cannot. Computer geeks and CEOs are allowed to love what they do. Yet no one envisions that part of their packages includes a lack of a decent standard of living and a bit of financial security.
OK, I am done now. Thanks. KB
on Wednesday, December 14th, jose freitas cruz said
it is happening right now Andrew, as you say. it's been going on since the dawn of time - it's the way the machine works. the scary bit for us is that for the first time we are starting to become acutely aware of it on a massive scale and starting to feel the effects much more than would care to. the security we look for to protect our comfort zone eludes us at a speed we can no longer keep up with. the imbalance is evident. the cure? step out of line, quit the goose-step as you say, reinvent the trails... the ones that come from deep inside you and don't be afraid to show and share where you got your sense of direction from, aknowledge your mentors, thank those artists who came before you and those who live alongside you for their contribution to what you are because you are nothing more than the scout of new bearings they made possible for you to envision.
on Wednesday, December 14th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said
The adoption of a role, any role, is done to have a sense of security (and, a false one). It establishes what you have to do, and particularly so if it is a well known role.
But it becomes, in fact, a prison, because you've limited your choices, you've limited your movement to a sphere in which you're only permitted to do what goes with your role...in other words, what's already been done time and time again. Imagine that you've decided to become a big time entrepreneur. To make this believable, you can't drive a fifteen year old Honda. Or even, a new sub compact. So you are already restricted as to what kind of car you can drive. And it doesn't stop there.
Anything that you adopt as your own, perhaps your politics, perhaps your choice of music, instantly becomes a prison, because it starts working to exclude everything else that's not in it's realm. Notice I say 'adopt'. This means, somebody else had it, or invented it, before you latched onto it. It's not yours. By pretending it is, you abdicate your free will about all the items that surround it...and there are many. You no longer lead, or act independantly...you follow...you goose-step. We who have chosen to be artists hopefully did it to avoid falling into this trap, and yet many of us, by adopting roles, have. The machine that is the result of all the goose-stepping gets stronger, and those who march have less and less to say about where they are going. Don't you get the feeling that this is happening right now?
on Wednesday, December 14th, jose freitas cruz said
The other aspect of selling-out which Olga and Andrew rightly point at is even more revolting than the one I was going on about. What can I say? Information-technology, its speed and its scope, has led us to believe that everything is possible and what we are witnessing on a global scale is the falling into slumber of masses and masses of people who are led to believe, and eventually do believe, that they are making it happen when all along they simply copy/paste without doing the thorough research this very same technology enables us to do, and processing it to come up with something truly of their own genius. And why? Because that is work, it requires time to process, patience to overcome hurdles, genius to capture the spark that comes from engaging in something you believe in and this, fellow-bloggers is what is withering away as we are lulled deeper into sleep by the onslaught of ever-newer creature comforts that are thrown at us with increasing violence. The artist who resorts to satisfying what the sleeping mass wants becomes himself sucked in to the very same black hole. He’ll shine for some time, make the fast buck, he’ll even appear in the ritzy art magazines, but what he loses in his essence by not engaging in the work he is called to do, he will never recover.
once again Michael, you've pulled a good one out of the hat.
on Wednesday, December 14th, olga said
Margaret, see defenition given here by Andrew (2nd comment). Which is more correct/general?
on Tuesday, December 13th, Margaret said
Michael said "You're truly "selling out" if you're compromising some deeply-held principal purely for the purpose of money, career or political advancement."
Any other definitions of "sell-out"? At what point is, and what constitutes an artist "selling out"? I would think there are multiple opinions and subjective lines could be drawn on this. Just curious.
on Tuesday, December 13th, walt said
I don't mind selling out as long as it was the work I believed in and wanted to do anyway. As to National Geographic and other large publishers, many who have worked with them are finding that their copyrights are being violated even outright stolen these days. Google is also at it in an attempt to upstage Yahoo's recording of public domain works on the net. Both writers, artists and larger and smaller publishing companies are going to be affected by Googles scanning and publishing of copyrighted works which is now in progress and being debated in various congressional committees. Some of this has been broadcast on C-span recently. Google has a convoluted argument that stealing copyrights is good both for the rights holder and the general public. This isn't selling out but out right piracy. Ultimately they are planning to treat intellectual property as if it were a natural resource free for the picking like wildflowers growing in a field. If you would like some more info lookup the Illustrators Partnership web site (you can Google it-poetic justice) to find out who else is twisting the arms of Congress and the courts to change the copyright laws to benefit big media. I've been peripherally involved with this issue for about 8 years now. We gave the founders of the IPA a chance to present their talking points in a round table discussion some 6 years ago here at the college.
on Tuesday, December 13th, Barney Davey said
I blogged here back in October on "Prosperity or Posterity." It covered some of the same ground in this blog. I didn't think to ask then, so I will now, "Does anyone have an example of a very successful artist from any field accusing another artist of selling out?"
Is it possible that those who attempt to brand artists as sell outs are mostly sullen soi-disant critics who couldn't make the big leagues and choose to denigrate those that have? David Lee Roth, when he was front man for Van Halen once humorously said, "It's no wonder all the critics like Elvis Costello because they all look like him." And a few more apropos quotes:
Envy is the art of counting the other fellow's blessings instead of your own. ~Harold Coffin
Jealousy is no more than feeling alone against smiling enemies. ~Elizabeth Bowen
Envy is thin because it bites but never eats. ~Spanish Proverb
A preview of your new comment is shown above as it will appear on this page. Click "Post It" below to post it, or click the back button on your browser to re-edit it.
on Tuesday, December 13th, jose freitas cruz said
Many Sales, Ed, not just at the event but in the months that followed and lots of contacts and future ventures in and beyond brunei for many of those who still live and work there. most importantly it created the need for art on the part of the public and this in turn has generated a steadier flow of commissions and opportunities for artists there. unfortunately for me i had to leave but i handed over the art forum to a bunch of able and enthusiastic artists i was fortunate to be friends with during those four years. someday hopefully i'll manage to go back, to do a show or just to see them, but for the time being i have to concentrate on things here.
on Tuesday, December 13th, Ed Baron said
Jose quite a wonderful adventure. Congrats to you on taking it forward to a profitable reality. That is not selling out, that is an art in itself to have something like this come together successfully. Were there sales made by the individual artists? Will you be doing this show again?
on Tuesday, December 13th, jose freitas cruz said
In my haste to comment i forgot to mention this: a great blog Michael.
on Tuesday, December 13th, jose freitas cruz said
Maybe I’ve lived for too long away from the real world and do not understand all this hype about selling-out – I know what is implied and I know that it is practiced, I know too that I tended to be adverse to it in the earlier and ‘purer’ stages of my efforts to become an artist, but that was because I was influenced by the propaganda of a group of people who believed that an artist should have no dealings whatsoever with the vile metal. But the fact remains, as Michael points out, that for something so big as an art even to happen (and to become meaningful in the long run) you have to go out there and collect the big bucks from somewhere.
I have learnt from my recent experiences in South East Asia that there are indeed a great many corporations [and people within them] who have a strong interest and yearning for Art and are willing to support artistic events if they are properly backed by a thorough plan. The coming on board of these corporate backers need not necessarily imply that the organizers or artists involved in the event become sell-outs BUT - and this is the bit that I learnt - you have to be just as ruthless in your negotiation, and steadfast about the vision you want to put forth as they are about the conditions for dishing out the $.
I haven’t got it in me to do this full time and therefore I would never become an organizer or curator of events. I’m an artist and I want to create my work. But I was forced [because of a total lack of infrastructure and conditions] to create conditions for me and others to show our work, and at one point, somewhere down the road [two years after we had taken our first steps], it became painfully clear to me that we either got the big bucks people on our side or we would never step out of the morass.
If you are as ruthless as they are in your vision and determination to see it materialise you will make the corporations see the benefits of being there by your side when it happens. We [artists] are the ones with the goods, we are the ones who come up with the fireworks, if the project is sound, if it is properly documented and we’ve got every angle cornered, they’ll be the ones wanting to remain by our side holding that match we need so dearly.
You don’t go to just one corporation, you go to as many as you can find the guts and the energy to tackle, and you go to as many within the same field of activity as you can. You don’t think ‘I’m not going to Exxon because I’ve already spoken to Shell’, no way! you go to Exxon, Shell, BP, Petronas… and deliver the same speech, hand over the same portfolio, and come out knackered out of every meeting but ready for the next one. The more people you have knowing about it happening, the more it is spoken about back stage. Sure they’ll be going on about the annoying upstart who had the nerve to show up with a laughable project to put up some art show and carry their logo, but the more they hear that the upstart has gone to the competition and that the gig might actually even be in the news, and they will be the one’s calling you back. You’ll be the one saying how the show will be run and, believe me, NO SELLING OUT OCCURS – the gig goes up just as you had dreamt it and the sponsors come back crying for more.
The following happened to me while I was gathering funds for the first major Brunei Art Forum Exhibition: In the Banks department I had a series of Banks lined up for interviews, my goal was to achieve at least 3.000$ from that sector – HSBC, Baiduri Bank, and Standard Chartered. HSBC was not interested in supporting the cultural awakening of Brunei Darussalam, it had other interests in view as a means to attract the attention of potential clients, golf competitions attracted sufficient numbers, but they at least had the honesty to say it from the start and save me time. Baiduri greeted me, not without a snigger, saw the validity of the project [I could see in his eyes that this was just what they were looking for to boost the image of the bank as one that wanted to reach out to the community] and proceeded to dictate its wants in exchange for their gracious support. One of the conditions was that they be the only Bank to support us and they wanted to have a preview of the art work shown. I explained that If we got the $3.000 I would grant a preview but would accept no interference in the selection process. They agreed to this and I would have confirmation by the end of the week. I then went to Standard Chartered and after exposing the Art Forum’s case promptly explained that Baiduri had demanded exclusivity. Standard Chartered said that given the project they would be willing to give us the money without exclusivity, they understood my position regarding Baiduri and stated that if Baiduri failed to keep its commitment they would always be there – no need to see the artwork before hand, the project spoke for itself.
Baiduri, in very, very, ill fashion [not returning calls, spreading sniggering remarks that reached me in the small expat community of the enclave] did not come through. But to cut a very long story short we ended up making over $12.000 which was more than enough to set up the exhibition the way we had visualised it. It was a gigantic fireworks, the talk of the town for months beyond the event. We got ample exposure in all the media and we all enjoyed the cathartic moment of watching an open mouthed Baiduri CEO hearing Standard Chartered CEO, and others, saying they wanted to join in as sponsors on all other events we ever produced.
There was never at any time, from any of those corporations I had approached and which had decided to help us, any interference or intention of interfering in the future. It very much depends on your power of negotiation and persuasion, it depends on your belief and how far you are willing to go to see it through as you had dreamt it – it’s the very end stage of a modern artist’s path AND GETTING MONEY TO PUT UP YOUR DREAM AS YOU HAD DREAMT IT DOES NOT ENTAIL SELL-OUT UNLESS YOU ALREADY HAD SOLD-OUT ELSWHERE WITHIN YOU.
on Tuesday, December 13th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said
Hey Bob, it's the same with people who claim not to have sold out. That's a herd of sheep. They all support one another, and validate the others who claim not to have sold out. Ba-a-a-a-a-!
on Tuesday, December 13th, Roger Cummiskey said
Nice note.
Show me the Artists that do not want to sell-out and I’ll show you the hundreds of thousands of children, Grannies, Granddads, Mummies and even Daddies whose pleasure is in the participation.
The people who want to and do sell out are the pros who need the dosh to buy the food and pay the utilities, who create and sway with the Marketplace. Patronage is not now as prevalent as it used be and the guys sitting in the ivory towers starve to death!
on Monday, December 12th, Brad Michael Moore said
I remember trying hard to get into the National Geographic fold back in 1976 while covering some dude walking across America who happened to be footin' it through SW Colorado. After learning their policy over ‘film rights and possession (even for the freelancers they might use),’ I backed out of the effort. I was thinking it would be a sell-out to put someone else in charge of the possible fruits I could bear artistically - even if they were the providers of my keep. Bottom line, my hands would be tied to the in-house politics that would decide who got those assignments best suited for me. I feared not finding "my advocate," for perhaps years, while my young-blooded opportunities dried up. My free spirit couldn't take that chance and I retreated from that dream. Whatever my chances were (likely slim), at least, I made a personal decision to walk my own path. That was my first and last opportunity to sell out. Can’t say I’m not open to offers to sell out now though – as long as it includes health insurance benefits…
on Monday, December 12th, Bob Moulet said
Ever look at a herd of sheep? They all look the same and they all follow one another. It's the same with sell outs, they all support one another and validate the others selling out.
on Monday, December 12th, Andrew said
"Selling out" might be defined as adopting someone else's dogma and then pretending it's your own. Art lovers do this, by wearing the mask of an art lover to have a societal role. Artists do it too, for the same reason. Art critics, the second tier that is, do it to make themselves a part of those in the top tier, without success. Phil, or Astro, $$$, whatever, does it by pretending that he is the originator of his ideas. Not withstanding the need to try to down everyone else so they won't tower over him. Fact is, there are very few people who don't latch onto what someone else has spent effort and time to create, and then dance that Macarena as if they invented it. The few, those who jump off of something that has brought them success and onto something else that's iffy at best, that's where you find creativity. And if they've jumped more than once, it's the only really valid sign of belief in their own talent.
on Monday, December 12th, Olga said
Hmm..you've made me smile, poor AVID ART COLLECTOR, Michael. I do not care about "sell out" as a way to success unless it does not touch politics. Art can be politically influenced but in a sincere way. I would not have respect to the artist or art collector with a chameleon-like attitude.
