Success, as defined by Miriam-Webster, is either 1)a favorable or desired outcome, or 2)the attainment of wealth, favor or eminence. With those in mind, what does it mean to be a "successful" artist?
According to the first definition, we achieve success every time that we reach the desired outcome. Anytime our art does or says what we want it to we are successful. But most would argue that this is success.
Most adhere to the second definition of success - the attainment of wealth, favor or eminence. That we are successful when we are rich or commonly lauded. The strange part is that, artistically speaking, this definition contradicts the first.
As an artist, how often do your goals and the desires of the public coincide? How often is the wealthiest the most talented?
Wealth is basically the ownership of money or things with potential monetary value. And with the ability to pursue these things as their own end (we have people who trade money, who buy and sell money), we have lost a large part of their original purpose and therefore their value.
Wealth is no longer a symbol of being good at anything other than the ability to acquire wealth. So for me, that counts out the "attainment of wealth" as a measure of artistic success.
The ideas of acquiring favor and eminence, especially from the general public, are often contrary to the goals of the artist. Art is often a progressive form of expression that relies on exploring new territory and testing the boundaries of our psyche and culture. Rarely, if ever, does this meet with public understanding and acceptance.
Is "success" possible for an artist? As soon as general understanding is reached, he is most likely on to the next thing, alienating his adoring public. But if success is defined as the achievement of a desired outcome, even unknown and never-to-be-known artists can be successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment