Are the masses really the asses?
Some people may think so. But what does this mean for artists?
In a society where artwork is valued less and less, do artists have to “water down” their work? Is this selling out?
I don’t necessarily think so. Sometimes artists just want to make their artwork more marketable to a wider range of people (and make something more financially successful). Let’s face it, Birds with Skymirrors would never be as successful as the Muppets Take Manhattan. Each has their own artistic vision. It just so happens that one appeals to a wider audience, whereas the other is a bit of an acquired taste (to say the least). But I don’t think that we should discredit works of art where this is the case.
Let’s look at The Muppets Take Manhattan. Back in its heyday, it was a successful blockbuster. Were the artists involved in the production “selling out”? I guess the answer to that would be completely relative. If one of the puppet designers went from designing puppets in a play that was aimed at highlighting racial inequalities to a kids flick, maybe they would think they were “selling out”. But as a young adult analyzing the film, I appreciate the film for its puppetry and downright catchy musical numbers. To a younger audience, it inspires a message of hope and perseverance which I think is a valuable lesson.
The Muppets Take Manhattan is a commercially successful work that isn’t example of an artist “selling out” in my eyes. But I have to say that Martin Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York” totally felt like he was “selling out” to me. In all honestly I think I disliked the movie because of the fact that it didn’t feel authentic to what I had come to believe was Martin Scorsese’s artistic vision as a director. After watching Taxi Driver, I appreciated the gritty, dark aura the movie gave. It was honest and unapologetic. I can’t say the same thing about Gangs of New York. To me it seemed oozing with hollywood influence and lacked the authenticity that Taxi Driver had. I do acknowledge the fact that Gangs of New York did have a purpose however. It depicted the political atmosphere of a New York that is long gone, which I could see as valuable to some people. However I do think that the overdramatization and hollywood-esque scenes took away from this aspect of the film and made it painfully obvious he was trying to spread his audience pool as far as possible.
Overall, I think that selling out is when an artist strays from their artistic vision. Naturally this vision is fluid, and artists change over time just like anyone else. But in reality, I believe that the audience can really tell when an artist is being true to their artwork or just striving to make something more commercially successful.
On the one hand, an artist can choose to remain true to their visions, or let some of them go to produce work that is more commercially successful. It’s truly a catch-22 for today’s artists.
