I do feel like making money from your "art" has become easier with the dawn of content creation, but it is still restricted by those same capitalist constraints (just packaged differently)
Caroline O'Donoghue portrays a very romanticised view of Ireland when she says '[Ireland] is a civilisation that believes art matters ... and funds it accordingly'. As an Irish person myself with experience in this area, I am obliged to say we, on a whole, value art as much as an modern capitalist country can value art. To claim that every Irish person; every Irish child can persue art if they so wish is false, I would nearly say, due to Ireland's financial position, art is even more of an inaccessible field thsn in the USA. Needless to say, one must be wealthy if one wants to be an artist today in Ireland.
My second point is regarding your description of what art really is today. You say art is 'podcasts, TV shows, [pop] music, films etc...' . Well, the Adorno-like cynic cringes inside me to read that: is this truly art? I really don't think so. You do mention art as a non-pecuniary-related endeavour, but how can what is listed above fall into such a category? They are simply commodities to entertain the masses, capitalism has turned (most) 'art' into a product.
Pop music is a blantant example: how can an industry worth trillions yearly be art? The undeniable primary motive for pop music is profit, as for most other forms of art/entertainment/commodity. As Pierre Boulez once said: 'Pop music is made to be consumed'.
The late-capitalist society we live in quite simply cannot facillitate true art: it goes against everything it stands for, we just don't have time for art anymore.
What, then, would I deem true art? Literature, music and visual art not bending to the demands of profit, nor to the entertainment of the masses. Did Keats care whether his poems earned him cash? Did Schoenberg care whether 'Pierrot Lunaire' became a hit? Did it matter to James Joyce whether his novels reached the best sellers lists?
Totally concede that Ireland -- no country for that matter -- is perfect in this regard! I do think artists can care about accolades and want to be paid for their work without losing part of their artistry. Not all art is equal for sure, but I think it can all hold value for folks. My main point is that people who want to create art shouldn't have to decide between creating and living. Thanks for engaging!
Oh Simone, how did you know what artists needed to read right now?! I'm a painter who relies on her support systems to live (hello house of mum and dad) which makes me feel both worthless AND privileged all at once. Artists need constant reminders that the work is worth something (even if it isn't money) and you've just done that, so thank you thank you.
Great post.
I do feel like making money from your "art" has become easier with the dawn of content creation, but it is still restricted by those same capitalist constraints (just packaged differently)
100% agree! Thanks for reading!
Caroline O'Donoghue portrays a very romanticised view of Ireland when she says '[Ireland] is a civilisation that believes art matters ... and funds it accordingly'. As an Irish person myself with experience in this area, I am obliged to say we, on a whole, value art as much as an modern capitalist country can value art. To claim that every Irish person; every Irish child can persue art if they so wish is false, I would nearly say, due to Ireland's financial position, art is even more of an inaccessible field thsn in the USA. Needless to say, one must be wealthy if one wants to be an artist today in Ireland.
My second point is regarding your description of what art really is today. You say art is 'podcasts, TV shows, [pop] music, films etc...' . Well, the Adorno-like cynic cringes inside me to read that: is this truly art? I really don't think so. You do mention art as a non-pecuniary-related endeavour, but how can what is listed above fall into such a category? They are simply commodities to entertain the masses, capitalism has turned (most) 'art' into a product.
Pop music is a blantant example: how can an industry worth trillions yearly be art? The undeniable primary motive for pop music is profit, as for most other forms of art/entertainment/commodity. As Pierre Boulez once said: 'Pop music is made to be consumed'.
The late-capitalist society we live in quite simply cannot facillitate true art: it goes against everything it stands for, we just don't have time for art anymore.
What, then, would I deem true art? Literature, music and visual art not bending to the demands of profit, nor to the entertainment of the masses. Did Keats care whether his poems earned him cash? Did Schoenberg care whether 'Pierrot Lunaire' became a hit? Did it matter to James Joyce whether his novels reached the best sellers lists?
My god, don't I sound like a snob.
Totally concede that Ireland -- no country for that matter -- is perfect in this regard! I do think artists can care about accolades and want to be paid for their work without losing part of their artistry. Not all art is equal for sure, but I think it can all hold value for folks. My main point is that people who want to create art shouldn't have to decide between creating and living. Thanks for engaging!
Oh Simone, how did you know what artists needed to read right now?! I'm a painter who relies on her support systems to live (hello house of mum and dad) which makes me feel both worthless AND privileged all at once. Artists need constant reminders that the work is worth something (even if it isn't money) and you've just done that, so thank you thank you.
Totally in the same boat! Thanks for reading!!
I love this piece!! Thank you so much for sharing it. More to say soon, but just wanted to voice my appreciation!!
Thank you for reading!
Love this