Julian Jones asks "Do rich artists make bad art?" I don't know if it's necessarily simply a money thing-- it seems like a much more complicated issues. I think the question is whether recognition, fame, fortune, celebrity, etc. make it difficult for an artist to keep their eye on the ball. Perhaps after entering in the limelight and becoming a celebrity of sorts, there is a tendency to loose touch with one's world. With celebrity there comes a new set of responsibilities. While any artist loves to get paid, the business people attached to the artist depend on the artist to continue to rake in the money. Once an artist becomes successful-- they become a product-- something to be marketed. Understandably some artists can flourish under these changed circumstances, and some can not.
Jones does point out several "rich artists" that were good artists in spite of being successful. What is different in these artists make up that allows them to keep creating great work? Is it that some artists care more about art than the money? Or is it a difference in thought process? Or is it that some artists are willing to take the risk of potentially alienating their business associates, audience, and critics?
No comments:
Post a Comment