Comments on: Should Artists Give the Audience What They Want?

By: Mark McGuinness

Mark McGuinness — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:02:34 +0000

Thanks Ben, good points. Yes you need a balance but I’d personally err on the side of expression - if you don’t have a burning desire to put something out there, the chances are no one will be much interested.

By: ben

ben — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:58:43 +0000

There is a saying that goes, “Art is an expression of joy or awe.”

It doesn’t say that, “Art is an expression of joy or awe only proportional to the positive reception of its intended target audience.”

I feel that you can have both artistic expression and success. But without creation being primarily a pure expression, most people won’t be deeply interested, at least for an extended period of time.

By: On Deciding . . . Better 3.0 :: Is Photography Dead? Can We Kill It?

On Deciding . . . Better 3.0 :: Is Photography Dead? Can We Kill It? — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:52:21 +0000

[...] I’m pushing these color images beyond just the high saturation and high contrast I’ve been doing over the last year and trying to capture and emphasize light itself. I’m concerned more about atmospheric effect that beauty or accuracy. I think I’m joining the “Photography Is Dead” movement. Wishful Thinking: Should Artists Give the Audience What They Want?Conventional marketing wisdom says you should be ‘customer focused’ and do your best to satisfy consumers’ wants and needs. But it’s a different story when it comes to creative work. Many of the most successful artists achieved fame by provoking and offending public taste. [...]

By: Mark McGuinness

Mark McGuinness — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:19:36 +0000

Thanks Robert, love the line about ‘a place to humiliate yourself’ - it seems like all the really worthwhile things in life (art, love, dancing) involve a willingness to make an utter fool of yourself if that’s the price of success. I was also thinking when I wrote the post that poetry is often criticised for being too ‘obscure’ or ‘elitist’ (usually by people who haven’t tried it recently) and there can be a certain pressure to make the work ‘accessible’. Which is fine for some poems, but not all of them.

Hey Lauren! Good to see you. And great points about knowing the audience and how far they’ll like/tolerate you pushing the boundaries. So then it becomes a dialogue between you and them, or maybe an argument or a dance?

By: lauren

lauren — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:19:35 +0000

fantastic post, mark. for both artists and audiences alike. whenever i create work, i have a bit of a mantra that is ‘know thy audience’. it doesn’t mean that i always pander to them, but that i actually try to speak to them on some level and allow a certain level of accessibility. even when you’re trying to be provocative, it certainly helps to have something that people will grasp onto.

being good at your craft, then knowing how much your audience will come with you when you push those boundaries is also vital. sow’s ear/silk purse and all that. the jesus and mary chain didn’t just succeed because they turned their backs and played with feedback - they were/are good musicians who knew how much to push and with whom - no accident that they played a poly rather than, say, royal albert hall. same with stravinsky, ts eliot and the impressionists. they were masters who knew their audience.

By: Robert Bruce

Robert Bruce — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:10:58 +0000

IMHO, that’s why they call it ART.

Really good question Mark. One that many should consider. Not that this game is totally pure or precious or noble, but the arts have been and should be the place to humiliate yourself, to go down in flames. To rise above the common, the safe, the known. To attempt it, anyway.

Safety, security, acceptance, they can be had in many other ways.

Play to the audience and you’re dead as an artist… don’t play to the audience and you’ll starve…

It ain’t much, but it’s what we’re stuck with. And it’s a hell of a drive home.