Making art more palatable or less "extreme" to curry favor with corporate patrons, or to get that NEA grant, or to get that faculty position is self-censorship, and it does happen.
No, it does not. Making art more palatable is simply the process of free trade between two uncoerced entities. If the artist does not offer what the corporate purchaser wants he will not sell. He thus adapt his style out to his customer. Nobody is threatening to use force to have the artist conform to the client. Nobody is forcing the client to buy what he does not like.
The artist does not have to compromise, he simply have to refuse the contract.
Well, my did is an artist, and I have to say that you really have to consider the "human" aspects of it before you rattle off refusing contracts for art. Artists do art because they think they're good at it, or prefer art as a career field more than any other, presumbably. When you have to feed a) yourself b) your family, taking contracts seems that much more palatable. I admit, I don't like it either, but, to use a far more philosophical arena, sometimes people make the sacrifices that they do ( in terms of integrity and pride ) for the long run. Sometimes people feel they have no choice at any point in their lives. Sometimes people have nothing BUT artistic integrity. Those who take the latter often get the respect of other artists, but respecting one's example is not the same as following one's example; who knows how many years of suffering you have to go through before you make it, if you make it at all ( case in point; Van Gogh, who only sold 1 painting his entire life ). This argument may not seem all too relevant to this forum until you consider integrity of information, and start to consider how much one is and is not willing to sacrifice to others, say the authorities or to a society, in the first place. It becomes quite important then; admittedly in a roundabout way. Sincerely. Quentin Holte. ( aka Charles Choi. ) You are all the Buddha. - Last words of Buddha. If you see the Buddha, kill him. - Zen proverb. On Sat, 9 Mar 1996, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Mar-96 Re: U.S. State Dept critici.. by JFA T. QC, Canada@citene
There is no such thing as "self-censorship". Either you stick to your values, and then it is *not* censorship, or then you do not, and then, it is neither.
Self-censorship does happen, and it's a growing problem in the arts community. (I'm not a commercial artist, so this is my understanding from other panelists and speakers at a conference I spoke at last month.)
Anybody using the term "censorship" to describe that is in the following situation : he *wants* the advantages of the contract (money) without respecting the customer, therefore. He deplores the fact that somebody (the customer) can act to his best judgment. The fact that the artist calls that censorship shows that he have the same thought process as the true censorers, i.e. the conviction that the end justify the means, and more specifically, the feeling that *his* ends justify *any* means.
The artist may not act on his feelings but nevertheless, they are, in essence, of this nature.
And unfortunately, too many artists think that way.
JFA Accepting a grant is accepting stolen money. The collectivists and their free-lunchers be DAMNED! Restore an objective monetary standard such as gold!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i
iQEVAwUBMUDVbsiycyXFit0NAQHG0gf+P1rmX5xQiRo5sHpvYBlvvclVdGxJaJ6c E+n35ln3/FFMGiguk5TEr6tOG+vj6UNBW2VibggQ9HkMkQ+6yTeJRrWQVje+YxxY pygYrY6wfDB8F9aemkVIiypZqvo+UrG+IZwKSsuqZuFmyxu5VsnAzFB/NQS6z/fq WPnm23t51kj2d6e+1PDVJRmv1Gpjaj34xt9YIif7S7fXdMI8vRbopRkoFfbXcFsE +I+fzeIPINXde44duW/tUmVbPZcrwxNgL0xo7AZ3fwzYGqOw2cR3zNFH9iPWs6O5 iV+fNIx2f1sKl1MbkydEHtPVctLT3cqX0Bvi5f0k6XKdzmCMGSOr9g== =qWzV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon@citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91