7 ms·
More mature or more commercial? You're talking about making money, but no mention of making music. A better argument is that art is getting more technical. o
by flanban 8y ago
More mature or more commercial?
You're talking about making money, but no mention of making music.
A better argument is that art is getting more technical.
or even just that's it's getting physically bigger.
Also, when music is commercial it's still called music.
Art stops being art when it's made for money. It becomes illustration, design, decoration or some such thing.
Historically a lot of EU or American artists are pretty much trust fund kids. because if you need to think about money all the time... you can't make art. Art requires some modicum of genuine freedom and most people need money to find it.
I'm not sure how that works for music.
- analog31 8y agoEven within noncommercial (e.g., academic) music, there is still certain amount of division-of-labor. Also, one person may perform multiple roles, e.g., composing their own music while also working for other musicians, doing production work, teaching, etc. I suspect most musicians also don't draw a bright line between artistic and commercial work.
- msla 8y ago> Historically a lot of EU or American artists are pretty much trust fund kids. because if you need to think about money all the time... you can't make art. Art requires some modicum of genuine freedom and most people need money to find it. And this is why "Art For Art's Sake" was invented when the middle class began to encroach on the upper class's ownership of art and the ability to make it. After all, if your social inferiors can do something, is it really special? No. So either abandon it, or define it to be something those people can't do after all.