Poll: Does something made enitrely for profit motive have any artistic merit?

[Signa]

I don't know what more can be said, but I'm answering yes to the question in the title.

The problem is, when something is made entirely for profit, artistic concerns get pushed to the side. Cost of production is a higher concern, as well as mass appeal. I've said before, that art comes from the need to express, produce, or a form of masturbation. A piece made entirely for profit doesn't have those motives behind it.

There's a few paintings in the houses I visit, just as wall decorations, and not because anyone really appreciates them as art or paintings. I've studied them a little, because the technique that goes into making them is so far beyond my abilities to draw or paint. They are all crappy nature scenes that look thrown together for a quick buck. One painting that my parents got many years back is a huge winter scene on a 6'x 8' canvas. It's a beautiful painting, but when I look closely at it, there's some clear signs of laziness that look like the artist was quickly dabbing his brush around on tree branches to place snow on them. That should have taken more precision than what he used. Lo and behold, my grandma ended up with the same exact painting, but it's on a canvas about the same size as a sheet of paper. Some guy was just pumping these paintings out as fast as possible for a quick buck. I don't judge whoever this guy was, because he had enough talent to make some nice works for these homes, but his work was clearly being damaged by his need for money over the chance to express and produce something he might want to make.

Applying the same observations to games, a lot of the soulless AAA games I see on the market are great on the surface, but the closer you look, the sloppier you start to see the design is.

 

[C F]

Art is a mirror held up to reality.

The question is: Is reality a capitalist?

Well, it tends to screw poor people over quite handily.

Anyway, My Little Pony was rebooted solely for sales, but since they hired an excellent writing staff I'd say the show has some artistic merit.

 

[Enamour]

snip.

I fail to see how homosexualtiy has anything to do with this....

It doesn't. I wrote a horrible little play on the spot. Guy Above You was an organic thing which I only saw after it had been abbreviated; the thought was 'Ahh, I can steal this gag from that one South Park episode.'

Point is, that there's no negativity intended and I'll happily change it if you feel it necessary.

The point I was trying to make is that "It's very easy to just Glue and Stick a story but then you end up with a piece of shit, it's as simple as that."

 

[HardkorSB]

The work of Michelangelo was work for hire.
You paid him money and he made paintings, sculptures and other stuff for you.
Yet, he is still regarded as one of the greatest artists of all time.

If you have skills, you can create good art for whatever purpose you want.
We live in a world based around money so if someone wants to pay you money for making art, you usually agree.

 

[RJ 17]

Let's just say if you think the great works of art that came out of Renaissance Italy were created for artistic reasons, you're in for a surprise...

With that in mind, yes you can.

It'd be hard to argue that Renaissance painters painted exclusively for the money and "just happened to be that good".

Not really, here's a little history lesson on the patronage system.

From the ancient world onward, patronage of the arts was important in art history. It is known in greatest detail in reference to medieval and Renaissance Europe, though patronage can also be traced in feudal Japan, the traditional Southeast Asian kingdoms, and elsewhere?art patronage tended to arise wherever a royal or imperial system and an aristocracy dominated a society and controlled a significant share of resources. Samuel Johnson defined a patron as "one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and, when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help".
Rulers, nobles and very wealthy people used patronage of the arts to endorse their political ambitions, social positions, and prestige. That is, patrons operated as sponsors. Most languages other than English still use the term mecenate, derived from the name of Gaius Maecenas, generous friend and adviser to the Roman Emperor Augustus. Some patrons, such as the Medici of Florence, used artistic patronage to "cleanse" wealth that was perceived as ill-gotten through usury. Art patronage was especially important in the creation of religious art. The Roman Catholic Church and later Protestant groups sponsored art and architecture, as seen in churches, cathedrals, painting, sculpture and handicrafts.
While sponsorship of artists and the commissioning of artwork is the best-known aspect of the patronage system, other disciplines also benefited from patronage, including those who studied natural philosophy (pre-modern science), musicians, writers, philosophers, alchemists, astrologers, and other scholars. Artists as diverse and important as Chrétien de Troyes, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, William Shakespeare, and Ben Jonson all sought and enjoyed the support of noble or ecclesiastical patrons. Figures as late as Mozart and Beethoven also participated in the system to some degree; it was only with the rise of bourgeois and capitalist social forms in the 19th century that European culture moved away from its patronage system to the more publicly supported system of museums, theaters, mass audiences and mass consumption that is familiar in the contemporary world.
This kind of system continues across many fields of the arts. Though the nature of the sponsors has changed?from churches to charitable foundations, and from aristocrats to plutocrats?the term patronage has a more neutral connotation than in politics. It may simply refer to direct support (often financial) of an artist, for example by grants. In the later part of the 20th century, the academic sub-discipline of patronage studies began to evolve, in recognition of the important and often neglected role that the phenomenon of patronage had played in the cultural life of previous centuries.

(taken from wikipedia page for "patronage")

Most classical pieces of art were bought and paid for before they were completed, not the other way around. The term "starving artist" arose from an artist who couldn't yet find a patron and as such was living in abject poverty. All the art that he/she was making while living in abject poverty was simply an advertisement in hopes that a patron would pick him/her up.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Are we talking about fine art vs. commercial/applied art here? Or is this about video games again?

]Not really, here's a little history lesson on the patronage system.

snip

(taken from wikipedia page for "patronage")

Most classical pieces of art were bought and paid for before they were completed, not the other way around. The term "starving artist" arose from an artist who couldn't yet find a patron and as such was living in abject poverty. All the art that he/she was making while living in abject poverty was simply an advertisement in hopes that a patron would pick him/her up.

Good points. Additionally, "art" meant something pretty different in the pre-modern era such as the Baroque and earlier; it was considered a practiced skill that you learned from a master and became your vocation, and crafts and the sciences were all considered art (this is also why there were so few female artists in those days, and that usually led to disaster). The modern concept of fine art wasn't a distinction made until much more recently. People had a very different mindset towards the creation of art back then, though the purpose of it was relatively the same.

These days, many commercial artists (such as for video games, film, illustration, etc.) also engage in fine art on the side and vice versa. Often the skillset is similar, only the conceptual approach and the intent are different.

I think it's also worth noting that most fine art is also created entirely "for profit", as professional artists actually do usually exist to sell their work and make a living from it (with lotsa exceptions, e.g. Martin Ramirez). That's why the distinction between fine and commercial art is usually made regarding the intent, or if it's meant to support a commercial product of some sort.

I think if a video game were to actually be fine art, it would not resemble most video games as we know them, including the more artistic ones.

 

[shootthebandit]

Im pretty sure that this is made to make a profit and its incredibly beautiful. Most decent cars are a good example of how art and engineering and commercialism can roll into one neat little package

 

[Chemical Alia]

Im pretty sure that this is made to make a profit and its incredibly beautiful. Most decent cars are a good example of how art and engineering and commercialism can roll into one neat little package

There's a term for that, it's called "applied art". It refers to the aesthetic/decorative design of practical or everyday objects, and usually includes architecture, industrial/fashion/product design. So the art that's involved in the design of the car.

 

[kasperbbs]

Most art exists today only because some dude painted/composed/etc. it to pay rent and put food on the table.

 

[RJ 17]

snip

Now you're just making it sound like people randomly decided painting was going to be the way they earned money and magically a Mona Lisa appeared, no passion, no talent, just greed.

Just because money is part of the reason someone paints (obviously everyone needs to eat) doesn't mean that there's no passion involved. You don't get that good at painting without both passion and talent. I know plenty of artists who paint (partially) for a living, and just because something is commissioned doesn't mean the artist can't put a lot of passion into a painting. Perhaps it's not the purest form of self expression, but that's not the question.

In short; That money was -part- of the motive for Renaissance painters is obvious. Everyone has to eat. But to say that the Sistine chapel's frescos were painted without a shred of passion is just idiotic.

The problem isn't with my response, but rather the wording of the question. Technically all art is created "purely for profit". If an artist didn't work and find a patron, that artist wasn't going to be able to put food on the table. It's that simple. I highly doubt Michaelangelo would have spent years laying on his back painting a ceiling if he weren't being paid for it. He wasn't doing that because he had a passion for the arts, he was doing it because it was a steady source of income.

That said - and the point that you're getting at - is that there is no such thing as "art purely for profit". Of course the creators of art do so with a passion and pride for their work...otherwise they wouldn't be artists, they would have settled for some other profession. That's why the answer to this question is based on its wording "yes, art made purely for profit (which based on the context of this topic pretty much all art is) still has artistic value".

 

[shootthebandit]

Im pretty sure that this is made to make a profit and its incredibly beautiful. Most decent cars are a good example of how art and engineering and commercialism can roll into one neat little package

There's a term for that, it's called "applied art". It refers to the aesthetic/decorative design of practical or everyday objects, and usually includes architecture, industrial/fashion/product design. So the art that's involved in the design of the car.

Surely this is the best type of art. When you can literally wear your art or drive it to the super market. Why keep your art tucked away at home when you can take it with you and share it with the world