The more money people get, the easier it becomes to make corrupt decisions. As any politicians and people of high authority face this problem, many artists as well are forced to come to choose between making music for passion or making music for lots of money and fame.

Many times I think people believe that any mainstream artists are complete cap and don’t consider them to be artists. You can take into account Beyoncé, Selena Gomez, Taylor Swift, Just Timberlake, and the list goes on. As opposed to artists, these people are seen as entertainers, which in reality they ultimately are. Most can’t sing, nor play an instrument, nor even write a lyric to their own song, however, they do tend to make millions off of their auto-tuned, “co-written,” pop hit wonder songs.

Then however, there are the less prominent, yet still well known and published under big producers that use the fame and big names to get their message across. In this category you can imagine Rage Against the Machine, Tupac, or the less popular bands and artists that play every year at warped tour. Of course they make a pretty decent living selling millions of albums and playing live concerts year after year, however, they promote strong messages directed at the audience, normally having something to do with government oppression, the subservient role created by capitalism, or real life struggles such as self-harm, depression, death, drugs, despair, and suicide. I’ve had many friends through tough situations who could really relate and used to cry because those songs said what they couldn’t.

Although it normally isn’t a good idea to mix money and anything (religion, art, politics, you name it), sometimes it is necessary to get certain and powerful messages out that Jay-Z just really can’t deliver rapping like a 21 year old at the age of 45.

This is probably the hardest blog I’ve had to write this semester (now that’s saying something). Because, this is one of those questions that don’t really have a definite answer, has so many parts, and has been debated many times over. Not only does it question the validity of artistry today, but the way that people interpret its purpose. Is the work being created today really mean something or is it just people trying to hit it big and make money? Are they selling out?

I remember hearing a discussion between two of my classmates about the meaning of ‘selling out’, one explained to the other it was when artists make things because they want to be famous they don’t really care what it means. They just want their few minutes of fame. Now for whatever strange reason what this brought to my mind was the singer, Miley Cyrus. In the media today whenever people mention her you know you’re going to hear about some crazy, sexual thing she did. I was reading an article the other day where the writer in a way rationalized what Miley was doing by comparing it to her character of Hannah Montana. They explained that just how her character was Hannah on stage but Miley at home maybe that’s what was happening now. On the outside she’s being promiscuous, because let’s face it sex sells, however when she gets home maybe she’s normal. This for me was interesting because some say that she’s changed and this is who she is. However, what if she’s doing this because she knows this is what the public wants. To sum up my confusing rant, maybe that’s just not who she really is but who she has to be, in order to be famous. Then again maybe she is just like that.

Another thing that comes to mind when thinking of selling out would be Beyoncé’s latest self-titled album. As someone who knows a lot of her music to me this album was certainly different from any of her previous music, it was much (much) more sexual. Some people wonder why she took such a different turn in her artistry, especially as a role model to many young women to be singing about these things. They question the purpose of it. Beyoncé however defends herself by saying she’s singing about liberation and ‘demonstrating sexuality as a power women should have’. She says the purpose is to empower women. I honestly don’t know what to think of it, any of it, really. I mean, there are so many examples of this, where artists create things a certain way that either might not be a reflection of their beliefs or just gets interpreted the wrong way.

However when you really think about it, is it that the artists are selling out, or have they just given in to what they deem society wants? I mean, you can talk about Miley Cyrus, Beyoncé, and even Kim Kardashian all you want but at the end of the day they’re making money and are famous. Especially Kim Kardashian, as a woman who came into the public eye the way she did and her photos for Paper Magazine, they’re both controversial however she’s very famous. Her wedding photo was the most liked Instagram picture of 2014 and she was the most searched celebrity on Google. Trust me all this free publicity is doing her wonders. Not to even mention the fact that Keeping Up with the Kardashians is in its ninth season. Nowadays TV networks are struggling to get shows past mid-season. Maybe we shouldn’t be questioning the artists but ourselves as a society, about the things we choose to glorify and accept as the norm. Maybe the art that served a purpose and meant something, doesn’t anymore because we simply don’t care.

Whenever I think about the word “selling out,” I tend to think about famous music artists, whom I used to listen to and admire while growing up. These artists include Taylor Swift, Avril Lavigne, Kelly Clarkson, and many more. I loved these artists because they seemed original to me, in their styles and ways of writing music. They also wrote about many meaningful topics and wrote about them in intricate ways. For example, when Taylor Swift came out with the songs “Tear Drops on My Guitar” and “Fifteen,” they touched the hearts of many young girls everywhere—however, this did not happen because of how “catchy” they were. These songs were deeply loved because they were very sincerely written, original, and beautifully composed. Similarly, Kelly Clarkson and Avril Lavigne also wrote very sincere songs such as “Behind These Hazel Eyes” and “Fall to Pieces,” popular songs, which reached out to many and had strong meanings. I, along with many others, admired the ways these women wrote music back then. However, now, when I listen to their most recent work, all I feel is disappointment.

Their new songs are repetitive, annoying, and are NOT thought provoking at all—and in a way, it makes me and many others feel let down. These artists no longer use the same techniques they used while writing music in the past, and seem to put in less work as a result. They don’t have well-thought-out lyrics anymore, and write retarded, unoriginal choruses, which anyone can come up with, such as “shake it off!” and “my life would suck without you!” What happened to their poetic lyrics? What happened to their originality? To me, it seems like it was all taken away because of money and the need to stay “popular.” For some reason, today’s generation gravitates towards mindless and repetitive music, that almost anyone with an instrument or a singing voice can write. Today’s society is attracted to artists with barely any originality such as Iggy Azalea, Ariana Grande, Nicki Minaj, and many others who DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IMPORTANT TO SAY. All these artists write about today, are their assets, their haters, their money, and lovers—nothing that can speak to or move an audience. Yet somehow, these kinds of artists continue to stay popular… and it infuriates me because like I said before, ANYONE can write the kind of music these artists are putting out today. And if artists like the famed Taylor Swift, continue to sell out, where is the creativity and originality of the youth going to go?

This semester began with a definition of art. I defined “art” as the expression of emotion or thought that evokes a response from it’s audience. So “selling out” would be the production of content that lacks that expression. This lack of expression most commonly roots from the artist creating content with the sole purpose of pleasing the audience and getting the most financial benefit from their disingenuous intentions. 

Having said this, I think that there are several major ways to succeed. Some people create content they are passionate about and through pure luck they are noticed and other people find themselves connecting with the idea. The other way, of course, is to understand what the people want to be exposed to and create that and shamelessly promote. And then there’s the cross section between these two extremes. A compromise of sorts. An artist can weave their message into something they know will have all the teenage girls spending their parents money. I believe this is an ideal situation because the artist is able to sustain themselves and simultaneously produce content they are proud of and content that resembles their beliefs. 

The interesting thing about selling out is its parallel to instant gratification. It’s bubble of popularity bursts as quickly as it builds. There’s minimal residue and the world continues as if it never existed. Truly meaningful art that holds the message of people who had something to say affects the lives of many and outlives the artist. 

To answer the question I think it’s very possible to create successful work that also has important social or political value. Looking over the list movies we’ve watched this semester I see some of the ones that really stood out to me. First we have, Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing”, which made an adjusted gross revenue of over fifty six million dollars. The movie was made almost twenty five years ago and still hits so close to home today. Had Lee made an easy to watch it wouldn’t have had the relevance it does today and in my opinion that is the true measure of success. Scorsese’s film “Taxi Driver” explores the dark sides of New York that are often coincidentally left out of media portrayal of the city. Scorsese has a point to make and he makes it along with a lifetime gross revenue of nearly thirty million dollars. Both Scorsese films starred famous actors for their lead role which is often a tactic used to gain popularity. It worked for “Taxi Driver” but not so much so for “Gangs of New York”. Not that DiCaprio didn’t do a good job, but the movie as a whole didn’t work as well and thus wasn’t as powerful in its message as “Taxi Driver”. DiCaprio appears in another one of Scorsese’s films, “The Wolf of Wall Street”. Much like “Taxi Driver”, this film showed beyond the facade into an unfortunate truth. To me, this film remained true to Scorsese’s intentions. Yes, there was a lot of money put into the production of this movie and yes, it was promoted without end, but as a whole the movie went beyond being entertaining. This goes to show that at the end of the day, a movie can be highly funded but not one be whose artists are “selling out”.

When does a piece of art cross from passion into business? That is a question that many artists ask themselves at some point during their lives. When starting to pursue their passion they create works that have meaning, at least to themselves, and have a message that they want to convey. Those that start to be successful begin to question why they started doing what they do. They begin making more money, and soon the money starts to drive their work. This is not the case for all artists, many will refuse to create and take part in work that goes against their personal morals.

Artists can always produce successful work with social and political value. For example, the purpose of the The Muppets Take Manhattan is to entertain children, yet throughout the movie there are constant lessons to be learned. We see the troubles that Kermit faces in trying to get his play on Broadway, and we learn of the concept of the American Dream and making it big. The messages can be hidden in a creative way so that the audience will not necessarily make the connection. In this way they will not think that they are, in fact, watching something that is politically or socially based and will still allow the work to become commercially successful.

When is “selling out” selling out? When you no longer create what speaks to you, and only to you, you sell yourself out. When artists start to create things that they have seen are popular and will make them successful and wealthy they sell themselves out. All their dignity is thrown away when they stop producing art that they are passionate about. It is often hard to distinguish when this happens. Artists themselves get confused as to what the purpose is behind what they make and if it is solely their own views that are driving them. The problem is that the art that often has the most political and social value is not necessarily the most popular. Therefore, it may not prove to be the most successful, at least in financial terms. By those that value certain political ideas and movements these works will be very successful, but pop culture is very peculiar in how it chooses what is deemed as popular.

The Producers is one of the most blatant examples of selling out. Mr. Bialystock focuses his entire pursuits in trying to gain money while producing his plays. Money consumes him so much that he decides to create a flop and keep all the money that he would raise for it. He does not care about the meaning or idea that his play will give to the public. This is the case for much of the art that is commercially successful because making profits drives a huge portion of our society; we have seen this throughout the semester in class, where greed was shown to be one of the biggest motivators for many characters in the movies we watched.  What has to be considered, though, is that although the people in the movies we have seen may have had corrupt and blurry morals, the artists that created them did not; they had very specific messages to convey about society and their movies all became successful.

Okay, so I read a lot, and I get very attached to the books that I read. When I hear that one of my favorite books is being made into a movie, I , to quote The Rocky Horror Picture Show, “shiver with antici………..pation.” But part of me also dies; to be more accurate, that part of me is probably tied to the back of a pickup truck and driven through a field of glass shards. And that is all because I KNOW that they will find a way to screw it up.

I thought I was safe for a while after I watched Catching Fire and The Fault in Our Stars, but then it happened: The Giver was released. 

Lois Lowry’s The Giver was one of my favorite books when I read it in the fourth grade, and it was still one of my favorites when I read it again in June. I was so excited when it was being turned into a movie because I was so convinced that a director would not mess with anything that was so perfect. I was wrong, clearly.

The protagonist of the novel is a twelve year old boy named Jonas and he becomes the Receiver of Memory in his “utopian” community and all that jazz. I will assume that we have all read the book so I won’t go into detail to avoid making this too long (if you want to go into detail, you can ask me because I have a lot of feelings).

I was in the movie theater all excited for it to start and when it did, I kinda had a “ummmm what” moment. The boy playing Jonas did not look 12; they raised his age to 16. I’m not going to lie, Brenton Thwaites did a great job and looked really good playing the part- oh, so thats why they raised his age. They wanted to be able to sell the character to a bigger audience, because what 16 year old girl is going to look at a 12 year old boy and think “omg marry me, please!” Not only did they kind of remove the extra layer of innocence resulting from the age of the character by raising the age, but they added a love interest! Sure, Jonas has some thoughts about his classmate Fiona in the book, but it was never actually explored; Fiona was there for a second and then we all kind of forgot about her. But in the film, they had a whole secret romance going on! All I could think was, “HOW DARE YOU.” The whole plot was altered just to make the movie more Hollywood with a Twilight-esque forbidden love. I also question why Taylor Swift and Meryl Streep were in this movie. Okay, I admit that I hate Taylor Swift, but so many more people could have played the part of Rosemary better. And Meryl Streep’s character was not even in the book! It was interesting to see the point of view of the Chief Elder, but was it necessary? Meryl, you let me down; it is Mama Mia! all over again. These big celebrities were just thrown into this movie to draw in more people and make more money.

So basically, for me, The Giver was my personal definition of “selling out.” Every change was made just so the creators of the movie could make more money off of it. I personally believe that this movie would have been immensely successful without all of these changes because the book was a great quality read that so many people love. So thank you, Philip Noyce (the director of The Giver) for killing one more part of me. The story was perfect before you came in and threw it into a blender and turned it into your really-good-book-and-Hollywood smoothie.

So I probably could have just said that “selling out” really is “selling out” when the end result of the art work is more disappointing than what it should have been, but this was so much more fun.

Now I should note that the movie was actually really great; like I cried like a baby because it touched my soul. But it just would have been better if they kept true to the book and did not sell out for the money.

P.S.- You should read The Giver if you have not already, and there are 3 more books in the series and they are fantastic.

Whenever my mom would tell me thats she’s nervous for the future generations i would always roll my eyes at her. But now that I’m thinking back, i realize that i know exactly where she’s coming from. People really will do anything for money. I mean its pretty much always been like that but now even more so.  Drugs, sex, and nudity are everywhere, its super publicized but what makes it worse is that its the new norm. My mother told me that back in the old days it used to be harder to access anything that was this type of rated R material. People used to disapprove of such things. CBS was fined during the super bowl when Janet Jackson had a wardrobe “malfunction” and it wasn’t even their fault! But now thanks to social media and the publics approval, we can see Kimberly Kardashian’s rear end wherever we go. Wheres the shame people? Okay i understand the artist behind the photo was trying  “break the internet” but why did he or she have to go about it this way? It was supposed to be prestigious and artsy but i just think it was an easy way for her to get some more money and the magazine to gain more publicity. But come on, where has the world come to? She’s famous because of her sex tape people, how is that okay?

Its depressing but the only way to survive in this world is by making money. However thats getting harder and harder to do. Sadly, celebrities musicians and other artist are forced to become mainstream and sell out in order to make it big and to say on top. Yes it is possible to be original, stick to your morals. create something with social/politcal value and make money off of it. It has been done before. But those artist who are not as talented as Michael Jackson are forced to succumb to the pressure in order to stay in the money making competition. Unfortunately theres only one thing left to do for these people and that is to sing about that junk in your trunk. Its like a chain reaction really. Someone decided that if your bring booty back  you’ll gain popularity. So let me introduce to you Nicki Minaj’s “hit” Anaconda. Apparently it was ranked number two on US Billboards Hot 100 songs. Congratulations Nicki, your butt song made it big and you got tons of money for it. But this is where i am confused. Has anyone actually stopped and listened to her lyrics or watcher her video? If you have i’m sorry for you and what the heck? How is that ok? Besides the fact that its degrading to women, its just dumb. She says nothing substantial within the song and i’m pretty mad at myself for actually knowing the first verse, but i’m blaming that on the radio stations that overplay their music. I have to give her credit though she knows whats she’s doing and she knows what she has to do to make her money. She is selling out and sadly its working for her. She is throwing her integrity down the drain in order to please the public and get the popularity she craves. If she was to sing about a social issue and actually wear clothing in her video would she make as big of an impact on her fans as she did with this song? I would like to think so.

We are living in a world influence by social media and people do not know where to draw the line. Enough is enough. It is possible to stay original, to value morality, and to move people without becoming mainstream. Just because some jumps into a cliff, doesn’t mean we all have to. There must be some way to to be able to balance art an money.

The intersection of art and money has existed since the beginning of time. How can one pursue his or her passion without making enough money to survive? According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, one must first meet his or her physiological and safety needs, such as food and shelter, before reaching the self-actualization level of morality. The only way one can do this is by making enough money.

So what should these artists do? Should they create art that sells or art that is in line with their beliefs? And where does “selling out” come into play? I think the best way to go about this issue is by creating art that incorporates both the artist’s values and what is popular in today’s society.

One such artist that does a very good job at this is Martin Scorsese. His film, Taxi Driver, does an amazing job at displaying the harsh reality of living in New York City. Through the use of Scorsese’s personal morals along with popular themes in American culture, the film became a hit. Scorsese touches upon racism, social classes, prostitution, and politics throughout his film. For many people, these topics hit close to home. As a native New Yorker, the film was very appealing to me. It allowed me to view New York from others’ perspectives and learn the truth behind many of today’s issues. It’s no wonder the film made $27.3 million. Scorsese effectively created a commercially successful piece while staying true to his values.

Let’s take a completely different approach to “selling out.” Many people think that Michelangelo was a sell out. He attended the Renaissance Master School and spent years upon years practicing sculpting. Michelangelo was a sculptor at heart, one who specifically hated painting. He considered it an inferior art form. So why then did he spend years painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? For the money, of course! The church was one of the only organizations commissioning work in his area, so Michelangelo had no room to be picky. He put his love for sculpting away, swallowed his pride, and took the money. The irony is that the piece became Michelangelo’s most recognizable works. I mean have you seen the pictures of it? It’s absolutely stunning and unquestionably one of the most timeless pieces of art in history. So who’s to say that Michelangelo is a sell out? Yeah, maybe he stopped pursuing his passions for a few years, but does that really make him any less of an artist? His piece appeals to millions upon millions of people and that’s one of the most important aspects of art. He influenced so many people and in my perspective he is one of the greatest artists of all time.

“Selling out” really isn’t all that it’s hyped up to be. Sometimes, artists have to do what is necessary to get by. It isn’t always such a bad thing. If people still enjoy the artwork, then who are they really hurting? Those who think less of artists who sometimes choose to swallow their pride and go for the big bucks need to take a step back and look at things from their perspectives. In today’s economy it isn’t an easy task to make money. You have to do what you have to do to make it and that’s what people have trouble realizing.