Economic Rationale vs. The Arts: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Economic Rationale vs. The Arts » Economic Rationale vs. The Arts

Economic Rationale vs. The Arts

Economic Rationale vs. The Arts

tomv
Bee Hive Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 19

Posted 03/26/08 - 04:18 AM: Subject: Economic Rationale vs. The Arts	#1
My question is this: Do you think that economic rationale, especially neo-liberal economics is not so much killing the arts, but rather cheapening it? Art, whether in the form of music, movies, visual art, literature, etc, is a form of creative expression, we all know that and I doubt many would argue against so. But just like what was said in the post about music, are people only becoming 'artists' because of the money? Has money overtaken artistic expression as the driving force behind artists works?
_____________________ "The door is open, the road transformed. The exit code to civilisation is hacked beyond despair, chased by the moon toward the freeing sun, on our journey to light. This is an open plea to the beautiful insanity of your hearts. It is time to consummate the kiss of oblivion into the obsidian of love!" - Serj Tankian

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 03/26/08 - 07:03 AM:	#2
Both, yes and yes.
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

apachama
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 8

Posted 03/26/08 - 08:25 AM:	#3
I would argue, no more than in any other stage in history. Artists since very early times have had to concern themselves with what will sell, at least since the development of any kind of economic exchange. I can see two reasons why money seems more important in the art of the modern world. We tend to forget the economic circumstances under which great art works were produced, who'd want to cheapen a great work of art by remembering that it orginally sold for a considerable sum of money? We also tend to only remember great works of art from the past, but we can easilly see all the mediocre modern artistic creations. Of course, its possible that the art industry is more developed now as well as that. But great works of art are still being produced, and still aren't always commercially viable.

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 03/29/08 - 12:55 AM:	#4
But if art is an expression then it does not matter what the inspiration is... Money did not kill art. Maybe it gave people a different incentive to create it, but it has not killed it. The truth is, people who like art that is not "popular" are insenstive about this fact and so, in order to make their art seem superior to "popular art", they created this bullshit idea that art created for money is some how "less" of an expression, or "less" artistic", than "real" art, which is art made for whatever arbitrary reason they believe should be the only "true" incentive: such as love for art itself or other such things. People create art for different reasons, none of which is any more justified than any other, and none of which makes the product more artistic or aesthetically valuable. Money, or corporatism, hasn't killed art; the people who think artistic expression is limited only to those inspired by the "true incentives" are killing art. The question is, are you comfortable or not with the fact that expressions are made for different reasons? Some rational, some arational, some economic, some not, etc. People who think EVERYONE should be listening to a certain kind of music, or what have you, are more prone to criticize other forms of expression via silly arguments over incentives. But if you are going to define art as an expression, then all of it is art just the same. Here's an aphorism I once wrote on the subject: "The art critic who finds disgust with the "common man's" love for "shallow" entertainment, is but jealous that he can not feel the same love for the "deepness" of his own."
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 03/29/08 - 08:14 PM:	#5
It's not money and it's not incentive that has killed the arts though they did play a part. It's education and attention that are the worst culprits. Or, I should say, the greater attention to things produced by and for those without education than to those produced by and for those with it. Simple question: Who won the Grammy for Best Record? What "world renouned" soprano won a 2007 MacArthur? I'm not saying Amy Whinehouse was undeserving of her reward but there is a clear difference in skill level between her and Dawn Upshaw. Why do people know all about all of these people who probably couldn't tell you the slightest thing about their own music and not about the people who win MacArthur awards? I think the problem is in the education. Especially in America where I live, there is an overabundance of people ready to think anything is great only because they don't know any better. Most people don't even know what a MacArthur is, let alone such things as the Grawemeyer, the Pulizter, the Tanglewood Festival, the Aspen Festival, the Prix de Rome, the Fullbright Fellowships, Rhodes Scholarships, etc., etc., etc. But ask them who just won American Idol last season...
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

imoet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 01, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/04/08 - 01:44 PM:	#6
Art itself can be an expression of a current social ideology.. of course today most of we create art to make money , we live in the economic-politic era..

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.