-Charlie Chaplin (1972 Academy Award acceptance speech)
In his banquet speech for his 1949 Nobel award, writer William Faulkner warned about the "tragedy" of people who peruse art for the sake of making money and hopes of "making it big." He stated that writing is at its strongest when done for writing's sake, when all sense of pretense is stripped away.
I feel very strongly that the intentions for making art is completely irrelevant to the quality or the impact of the art. There are numerous examples of this being true; as mentioned above, Charlie Chapman, Mozart, and Jay-Z managed to master their respective mediums being motivated primarily by money. Outside of monetary motivations, Brain Wilson made music in order to avoid the wrath of his abusive father, Henry Kissinger gives some credit to his foreign policy work as being a means to get pussy, Wesley Willis made haunting outsider music because the voices in his head told him to do so. The pissy, petty rivalry between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla created a competitive environment which motivated each of them to pour their creative juices into making an invention that would bring public humiliation to their rival.
Perhaps the most telling example of the relevance of art formed through self-intrest is the impact that hip-hop, a cultural movement dominated with themes of greed and self-aggrandizement, had on American culture, completely transforming the worlds of music, fashion, dance, industrial design (at least with cars), film editing, and communication. (The number of new words introduced into the english language through rap music is stunning, and still growing)
"Believe me, my sole purpose is to make as much money as possible; for after good health it is the best thing to have."
-Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (On why he makes music)
"Rap critics they say he's "Money Cash Hoes." I'm from the hood stupid, what type of facts are those? If you grew up with holes in ya zapatos, you'd be celebrating the minute you was havin' dough"
-Jay Z
In his banquet speech for his 1949 Nobel award, writer William Faulkner warned about the "tragedy" of people who peruse art for the sake of making money and hopes of "making it big." He stated that writing is at its strongest when done for writing's sake, when all sense of pretense is stripped away.
I feel very strongly that the intentions for making art is completely irrelevant to the quality or the impact of the art. There are numerous examples of this being true; as mentioned above, Charlie Chapman, Mozart, and Jay-Z managed to master their respective mediums being motivated primarily by money. Outside of monetary motivations, Brain Wilson made music in order to avoid the wrath of his abusive father, Henry Kissinger gives some credit to his foreign policy work as being a means to get pussy, Wesley Willis made haunting outsider music because the voices in his head told him to do so. The pissy, petty rivalry between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla created a competitive environment which motivated each of them to pour their creative juices into making an invention that would bring public humiliation to their rival.
Perhaps the most telling example of the relevance of art formed through self-intrest is the impact that hip-hop, a cultural movement dominated with themes of greed and self-aggrandizement, had on American culture, completely transforming the worlds of music, fashion, dance, industrial design (at least with cars), film editing, and communication. (The number of new words introduced into the english language through rap music is stunning, and still growing)
I myself feel much more comfortable with myself when I admit that I just don't write because I have a drive to express myself creatively, but because I also have a drive to impress my peers, a drive to have the relevance of my ideas validated, and because, even though it is extremely unlikely, there is a possibility that I could run into my ex-best friend from the sixth grade and I can annoy him with how successful I have been in my smug, passive aggressive way. (Screw you, Joey Difranco)
Faulkner was right about one thing; that it is humanity's destiny to constantly improve itself (or whatever) constantly rectifying the problems of the past. But this happens not because some altruistic author's selflessness works, but because the market place of ideas works; in a room of 10,000 jackasses screaming on the top of their lungs about their own selfish wants, at the very least one person has a good idea in which society can work on.
No comments:
Post a Comment