The slogan “art for art’s sake” was adopted in the early 19th century to signify the philosophical belief that art should be able to stand on its own, void of any specific moral, religious, or utilitarian function. Artists sought to redefine the value of art, testifying that art was important because it was art, not because it had any specific purpose.

Today, that phrase seems to be associated with some hippie-like mentality from days that don’t exist anymore. But, have we really moved past the debate? Art for art’s sake? That can’t happen. Who’s going to pay the mortgage if you sit around and make art all day just because you can?

When I was in college, those of us in the BFA painting program mocked others who engaged in the arts merely as a past-time. Our running joke inspired us to create a series of silkscreen shirts that said “weekend painter” and “weekend artist” on them. Yet, since undergraduate days, I have moved more into the administrative and policy side of the arts and, sadly, have become that weekend painter.

Why? Because it doesn’t pay the mortgage.

I found that the amount of money I was putting into creating my paintings considerably outweighed my financial gain. Overtime, I began to equate artistic success with monetary success, underestimating the importance of expression and focusing solely on the end result. Looking back on it, this perspective seems a little naïve. But at the same time, I think it’s a debate that plagues every artist and causes her to make real life choices: to create or not to create.

I see this same mindset over and over again in the copyright debates: the inability to separate copyright protection from financial success. Artists are pecking at each other over whose system of distribution (free or not free) is better or which label to use (or not use), and how copyright fits into these. Assumptions are being made that copyright protection is important only for those artists who are selling their works through big labels (or galleries or wherever). In essence, people think that copyright doesn’t matter to them if they are not selling their work.

But what people forget (or don’t seem to realize) is that copyright protection is about a host of other issues as well – not just financial success. Copyright ensures that an artist is recognized as the sole creator of the work. It gives her the ability to use and reuse the work or elements of the work as much as she wants. And, it gives her permission to distribute works wherever and however she chooses. Artists receive each of these benefits regardless of whether or not they get any financial compensation for what they create.

Yet, these essential elements of being an artist – which are fundamental to every creator – are so easily overlooked as benefits of copyright. Can we be surprised, then, that in this money obsessed society, where fame and fortune are in every young person’s dreams, that art can’t be just for art’s sake?

Share this:

This entry was posted on Friday, August 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am by Lucinda M. Dugger and is filed under copyright opponents, creators, market forces. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.