From weddings to galleries
One of the things I’ve always struggled with in my mind is the bridge between the commercial viability of art and staying true to a work’s core ideas. Often, a work needs to be watered down or simplified for the sake of appealing to the masses. If an artist stays true to his or her vision of a work, it’s usually at the cost of commercial success. But what happens if an idea is easily adaptable to be used in a commercial way? Should the artist forego the commercial idea in order to preserve integrity, or should the artist pursue it at the risk of diluting the original artwork upon which it was built?
I’ve been toying with an idea for a new video-based artwork for a while now. The work is a database-driven computerized video installation that is set up in multiple locations. In one location, people would enter a “confession booth” and record a story. In another location, a video screen randomly plays stories from the database of recorded confessions. Conceptually, the work is about bridging gaps between technology and human interaction, ideas of removing boundaries in distance, and about the anonymity of technology removing psychological barriers in open discussions.
The work has a strong conceptual base, yet I think it is very accessible. But by simply changing the setting of the work from a gallery space to a wedding reception, the context changes dramatically. In a gallery, we immediately look for meaning and concepts. There is an inherent base of theoretical underpinnings upon which people view the work, and it adds a considerable amount of depth to the piece. If it were installed at a wedding as a way for guests to record well-wishes for the bride and groom that would be immediately displayed on a screen in the dining hall as guest mingle and dinner is served, all those concepts vanish, and the work becomes nothing more than a novelty; A GOOD novelty with great potential, but a simple novelty none-the-less.
At what point does commercial success tarnish an artists reputation? Should a work’s credibility be dictated by the success of similar works with the same technology?
Let me know what you think.
A7
Tags: a7, andy morris, art, artist, commercial, gallery, success, video, wedding
May 30th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Well,
I guess the question is… does commercial success, or success period even tarnish an artist’s reputation? Take for instance a rock band (an I know you know I’m thinking of Metallica:-), if they release an album that appeals more to the masses and receive commercial success as a result of that, they are considered sell outs because they weren’t true to thier original form by toning down thier music but has their reputation really suffered? I’d say no because they’ve explored new artistic avenues, however diehards of the artist’s work would argue yes but what can’t be denied is the music has spread to a wider audience and a broader spectrum of people, which esentially is the primary objective of any artist, at at least any one who wants to be recognized as such. To have one’s work viewed, heard and opinionated on by as many as possible, whether taken positively or negatively. As in the case with your idea, the meaning and concept of said piece may be more appreciated in a gallery were the majority of viewers would scrutinize and break down its design and vision in a more critical artisitic context and provide more meaningful accolades to the artist, however, the practicality of the piece would be much more appreciated in a real life environment (such as wedding) where people aren’t looking to evaluate but simply appreciate first hand the intent of the vision and design. But, no matter where a piece of art is displayed and in what medium it all comes down to the opinion of the eye of the beholder (a cliche, yes, but a true one none the less) and essentially from which a reputation is created… and the artist, unfortunately, has no control over that!
So all the artist can really do is create and keep creating for him or herself and let the reputation become what it may…..
just my 0.02
D
May 31st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Well said David
June 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Hey Dave. Cool post. But in a weird way, you echo exactly what I’m saying. You wrote “So all the artist can really do is create and keep creating for him or herself and let the reputation become what it may…..”, but the questions is what to create? Did Metallica create a toned down album specifically for commercial success? If so, does that change things? Because if they did, then they didn’t create it for themselves, they created for others… and maybe they really are sellouts. But if they created it for themselves, and it just happened to be toned down and appeal the a wider audience, then so be it. It doesn’t matter what people think because they stayed true to themselves.
I guess the question still remains… when should the artist draw the line?
However… you did bring up a fantastic point about my idea. I like how you defined how different audiences bring out different ways of viewing. I agree with you fully. It also brings up another point regarding labels; If I “label” the work as art, does that change the way in which people view the work, regardless of space? If I displayed the work at a wedding, but there was an artist’s statement next to the piece (so it was clearly displayed as a work of art), would people be inherently more critical? Would they try to “understand” the piece, instead of just enjoying it?
And for the record Dave, I fully intend to display the work at your wedding if you want it. But, from personal experience (doing wedding video work), word travels fast when something is good. This post is more written in the context of what should I do after your wedding? If I get asked to install it at another wedding for $400, do I take the money? Or do I maintain my integrity and try to get my work in a gallery instead?
Being an artist is not easy. Especially when you have bills to pay.
A7