art vs commercialization

[mcwkm]

This has probably been discussed before the debate of art vs commercialism. When a painter paints a portrait does it matter if it is done in the name of art or the name of money? Point of the thread is really does selling out matter and have anything to do with the art itself?
A lot of people including myself view selling out in as a bad thing. I am not against artists being compensated for their work but when they are just making art in order to make money and not to create a great work, they cannot be considered an artist and they are essentially businessmen.

[kenoodo]

[Charlotte]

If I knew an artist who sold their paintings, I wouldnt think ofthem as a sell out. Because its still good art being created, so what if they sell some things. If I wanted to sell my artwork I would probably save my best works. Plus, people need to make a living if art is the only thing they want to do, then selling it is their only option.

If any of you are web-designers here and sell your work, would you count that as selling out? As I believe it is still a form of art.

[mcwkm]

[Charlotte]

I think its okay to create certain art for the sake of money, but if that was your sole reason to do it, then I would call you a sell out. If you did it for money and for art then its okay

[drath]

Let's all take a little art history lesson shall we. Almost all, if not every master (traditional) painter was commissioned to do atleast one painting, but in most cases hundreds and thousands of paintings were commissioned for each artist. This is how painters and art makers in earlier periods got by, art was essentially their career and job; while others blacksmithed, or were bakers, etc.

Calling people that sell their art "sell-outs" is no different than calling those same blacksmiths or bakers sell-outs because they are selling what they created in their own skill-set.
_________________
The Gamer's Journal | Online Portfolio | Half-Life Library | UNDATA