See, here's the thing. I place more relevance upon artistic merit than I do on corporate priorities, mostly due to the fact that I find monetary gains to be fleeting and quickly forgotten whereas art holds much more of a permanent relevance in many aspects that far eclipses ones dictated by business. If the artist is fine with it, ok....that's their perogative, it's their work, and their compromise. I can't much argue against that, but it doesn't mean I agree with it. To get the art out there, you have to entangle yourself with something that at times runs antithetical to the means of revealing its true form. That's just the way the world functions.
I don't know man.....something in that still strikes me the wrong way, even despite a common ground found among parties to mutual benefit. I suppose the phase "selling out" would be applicable here. The conceding of personal expression for monetary gain.....fighting against that is idealistic, sure. But morally justifiable? In that case I don't think there's an argument to be had, frankly. But that's because I view all art to be priceless.
Log in to comment