Back in high school, I thought I wanted to be a lawyer. Not just any lawyer however, but a big corporate one, where the people you work for basically own your entire life, but give you a quarter of a million dollars in return every year. I interned at a law firm and my employer said, “why are you here? Why do you want to be a lawyer, for the money?” and I said “Yep.” (Needless to say I was a silly little girl, and I have grown since then, but lets continue with my story). My employer then told me something that I will probably never forget: “If you do something that you love and that you’re good at, then the money will come.” This idea was astonishing for me. Money became something that was more of a reward for a job well done, rather than an outcome of being a slave. She opened my eyes and made me realize that you don’t have to be a slave to money, and that money will come by itself if a person is deserving of it. This concept can be applied to most careers, and I think it greatly applies to artists.

Artists often spend so much time and effort on their work, and many of them not only attempt to express their own feelings into their work, but touch the feelings of others with their art as well. I not only believe that artists can produce commercially successful work that also has important social or political value, but I think that when they do incorporate social and political issues into their work, it is what draws attention to it and makes it a success. All of the films we’ve watched through out the semester touched on either social class, race, or other social issues that exist in New York City. A film such as Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, talks about the “scum and filth” that roamed the city, and gives harsh opinions on topics such as prostitution, racism, politics, and many of the other issues that surrounded New York City during that time period. The film was totally and completely about social and political issues, and was also considered one of Scorsese’s best films.

With that being said, there are also artists who produce commercially successful work… just to make them commercially successful. Some people call it “selling out”, I call it making a living. Yea, I bet a lot of these “commercially successful” pieces of work may not be exactly meaningful or touching, but hundreds and thousands of people like it so why not produce it? I find myself not listening to a lot of commercially successful work that has no social or political value, because I often don’t see the point of it, but if other people like it, which they definitely do, then who am I to be against it. The artists make money, and some people enjoy it. Sounds like a win-win to me. Making it big in this industry is hard, and these artists are people too. If they do what they love and are good at it, then maybe the money will come to them on its own. But we live in reality, and growing up I realized that although what my employer said was very nice, it might not always be the truth.

Chances are, you’ve visited YouTube at least once in your lifetime. And if you have, then you probably have scrolled down to the comment section, you might even have commented on a particular video yourself. Even more likely, you’ve seen comments ranging from “thos suxx my mim singz bettr thsn this!” to “OMG I luv 1D sooo much, Zane and Callum from 5SOS are my husbands <3 <3 <3 <3 !!!!” My personal favorites are those that mention something along the lines of, “man, this guy has sold out! Where’s the old____?! we need ___, not this crap!!!”

This “selling out” the last comment talks about is a term used to describe someone who has thrown away their creativity and originality for fame, money, or to please others. Most of the time, these commenters on the YouTube section write these lengthy paragraphs about the “good old days” and the times where “musicians didn’t sell out for the fame.” And this isn’t just concentrated on YouTube, every artist has or will experience some criticism on any medium, be it the internet or a verbal encounter.

These particular comments are my favorite because it doesn’t just end with the comment. There will always be 20+ replies, either arguing or agreeing with the commenter. It seems that people can’t decide what “selling out” actually is. Some say it’s when you become more “radio-friendly” (you see this on a lot of the heavier bands pages). Others say it’s when you sound a lot like another, more popular, artist. Some even go as far as to say that when a musical group gains a larger following that they’ve “sold out” because they haven’t stayed true to their original 20 person fan base from when they’ve first started. Then there are those that say an artist has only sold out when they change their message to match what’s trending or a hot topic. I have to agree with the last example; I think “selling” out has to do more with an artist changing their styles to please others by hopping on trending topics than becoming mainstream or “radio-friendly.” I believe that these are side effects of what happens when you “sell out.”

I think a lot of people think that somewhere along the line to becoming commercially successful you have to “sell out” or compromise your ideas for want the audience wants to hear or see. Which, no doubt, we see a lot of this in the music community; many musicians completely change their messages or lyrics to attract recording labels or even to keep their labels. But I don’t think that it’s something that has to happen. It might seem like all that’s on the radio are these generic boy bands or pop stars but there’s a whole other world to music – one where artists have their originality intact and are producing music with actual political or social value while still making money.

While not as popular in mainstream North America as they are in Latin America and Europe, the rock group Maná is one band that comes to mind when discussing this subject. No other Latin rock act has sold more albums with the same consistency of Manà for a total of more than 30 million albums worldwide. They have earned four grammy awards, six Premio Juventud awards, fourteen Billboard Latin Music Awards, fifteen Premios Lo Nuestro awards and five MTV video Music awards. Manà has been named as a trail-blazer for many popular Latin rock music groups. But it’s safe to say that they haven’t “sold out.” Even when changing their sound in the 90’s, their messages have stayed the same. But don’t get this twisted; although they’re saying the same things, it’s not the same thing. In Manà’s case, they still sing about saving the environment, love, pride, and life without repeating themselves. Although politics have changed since they’ve started, wars have started and ended, and trends have come and gone, they manage to take their message and translate it through many different ways that allow them to attract such a huge fan base. It’s bands that are able to adapt to their changing surroundings without giving up their founding essence that avoid this trend of “selling out.”

Hopefully, in the future, people will start realizing how much more meaningful music and art can be when you stay true to yourself, and not look to fame and money as the ultimate goal.

I really hate Andy Warhol. He is such an unbelievable sellout. Draw something once, silk screen it, have dozens of the same image, make millions of dollars. That is the life of Andy Warhol. Holy shit, how am I supposed to respect an artist for making the same exact damn piece of art so many times? I am so beyond frustrated with how much people love his commercial bullshit. WOW, he can take one portrait of Marilyn Monroe and repeat it in different colors! AMAZING, how his silk screen could do all that! I will never be as talented as his silk screen, nor will I ever make as much money as his silk screen did.

Talented ol’ Andy Warhol can even draw simple objects. I can’t draw a Campbell soup can. I can’t repeat the Campbell’s soup can exactly the same way thirty-two times using a silk screen of my original drawing. WOW, I am so impressed with his artwork that any art student can do.

MASS PRODUCTION. That is what makes a great artist. I can then sell the same piece of art to everyone! Isn’t that just absolutely fantastic? Look, I can go to almost anywhere and get a tripped out portrait of Marilyn Monroe, isn’t that great? I love life when I can get my psychedelic Marilyn Monroe portrait that everybody else has. OH LOOK, I CAN GET MARILYN MONROE ON MY PHONE CASE- THANKS ANDY WARHOL, you absolute sellout.

As stated by Andy Warhol, “Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.” Art and money are two completely different aspects of life that intersect in so many ways. Many artists produce artwork as a career and depend on producing commercially successful work. As stated by Warhol, making money is actually ‘art’. However, the bigger question is whether this ‘art’ can contain social or political value. The answer to this question is yes! How many times have you watched a film or watched a play that you simply disagree with? How many times have you watched a film in which you felt disturbed or offended by (“Birds with Skymirrors”… Taxi Driver... Breakfast at Tiffany’s…)? Well, these emotions were triggered because the film or play had a deeper social or political message that you probably disagreed with.

Artists can obviously produce commercially successful work that also has important social or political value. I mean, we spent the entire semester discussing different forms of artwork and our opinions towards them. This alone should be enough to show that the works we have studied have important social and political value. For instance, Taxi Driver was a pretty commercially successful work of art. The Domestic Total Gross made from Taxi Driver: $27,300,000 and the Domestic Lifetime Gross: $28,262,574 (BoxOfficeMojo).

Not only was Taxi Driver able to be commercially successful, but also Scorsese incorporated many social and political messages in his artwork. For example, Scorsese addresses issues such as political corruption and alienation. He uses Palantine to represent how politically corrupt the world is. Palantine uses the phrase “We are the people” throughout the film; yet, his cliché statement demonstrates how empty-headed he really is. Additionally, alienation is show in various scenes throughout the film as Travis demonstrates how much of a lonely place New York City can be. Scorsese demonstrates that artists can definitely produce commercially successful work that can also have important social or political messages.

Another side of this topic that should be examined is whether or not accepting money for a commission means that an artist has comprised his or her art. Although making money is ‘art’, it does not necessarily need to be created by selling out. The process of accepting donations and money with the requirement of needing to comply to another person’s wishes requires the artist to give up his or her true intentions. Basically, in this process, the artist is buying into someone else’s beliefs and wishes. “Selling out” can occur in different industries of art. In the case of film, directors may compromise the content of the media they are producing for money. In the music industry, an artist who usually uses foul language may give up the vulgarity only to avoid offending a mainstream audience.

Ultimately, money plays a huge role on the type of art that artists produce. Artists can definitely produce commercially successful works that contain significant social or political value. This is illustrated in Scorsese’s film, Taxi Driver. With this being said, many times, artists “sell out” by compromising their morality and principles only for the purpose of gaining money and a commercial audience. However, “selling out” isn’t always necessary to become commercially successful. It is the process of an artist giving up his wishes and accepting money in exchange for making his or her artwork geared towards a conventional and commercial audience.

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.