Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
The suggestion there is that all creativity that is commercially-driven (I did it to make a living) isn't "true" creativity, and is somehow diminished against "true" creativity.
My response to that is: So what? If commercially-sponsored creativity is enjoyed by others, I don't see that it needs any other criteria to justify its existence. Especially as there's plenty of non-commercially-sponsored creativity that, "true" or not, is still c**p.
The implication that money "taints" creativity, or anything else, for that matter, isn't an opinion shared by all. Money is simply another incentive to create, or to do anything, and just as valid as concepts like "recognition" and "philanthropy." It's not evil... it's practical.
As corollary, the implication that avoiding money somehow makes something "legitimate," is also an opinion not shared by all.
|
When people write in order to make money they make creative decisions based on how it will impact their profits. No more 10 page descriptions of kitten killing because it might put people off buying. They would also start writing what they think people will want to buy rather than what they really want to write.
I've seen this in music as well. Bands get lucky and sell enough records to give up their day-jobs. After that their music changes to attract more buyers. It's no longer a hobby so they have to make decisions based on profitability and chase mass market acceptability.