Art vs. Commercial: The Non-Battle of the Ages

You know, I think it’s the psychological crutch factor you hint at, Ted. If I’m not successful, I need to explain why. One reason is that my work’s not good enough. A more palatable reason is that the very definition of success is faulty.

“I’m OK, you’re not OK,” in the parlance of 70’s pop-psych.

I think your modus ponens or modus tollens or something is a little off on the necessary truth of the corollaries, but I love the point. One would have thought the debate was handled about thirty years ago with the pop art movement, but I know it continues. Bottom line, if the scripts don’t sell, work harder on the writing. So, I keep my head down, my thoughts clear, my chops sharp (and hopefully getting sharper), and keep grinding on. Thanks to you and Craig for this amazing website….

Glad you’re digging it, Jon.

And since you had me running for Google, here are the definitions for the rest of us.

Modus ponens means that if you accept IF A THEN B as true and you accept A as true, then you must logically accept B as true.

Modus tollens is the negative corollary. If you accept IF A THEN B as true and you accept NOT A as true, then you must logically accept NOT B as true.

Ya learn sumpin’ new every day around here…

Jon —

My thinking was this:

If (Commercial = Not Art) is True, then (Not Art = Commercial) must also be True.

If (Art = Non-Commercial) is True, then (Non-Commercial = Art) must also be True.

Am I misusing the term “corollary”?

(Not being argumentative here; I am admittedly a little — okay, a lot — shaky on the terminology of logic).

(Although, if the problem is that (Non-Commercial = Art) does not necessarily follow from (Art = Non-Commercial), then good — because my point was “Commercial/Non-commercial” and “Art/Not Art” are measures (or judgments or standards or observations or etc.) of two different qualities of a work).

-

Consider me simple-minded, but how about this: When you are creating it is Art. When you are done and put your effort Out There it is commercial.

We have the unique opportunity to participate in the commerce of screen story. And commerce isn’t bad. When and where and why, holy crap why, did trying to feed the mouths of your family (with the finest money can buy) become such a terrible thing?

I create. It is an act without end, right? As artists, we create things that have a subjective value. When and if someone pays me for the words, that part of me - the creator - does not die. Hopefully I wake up before the sun rises on the next day and go about the difficult task of doing it all over again.

And, for the record, I love the phase ego balm.

In one hundred years, people will still be watching Star Wars (just the original trilogy ;-)) or Finding Nemo or Gone with the Wind and no one will remember Brown Bunny ever existed.

This is not to say that every commercially successful film will remain in the public’s eye or that every “art” movie will fade quickly from memory, but rather to suggest that the best commercial movies are a lasting artform.

And, to misquote Geroge Lucas, that’s the real trick isn’t it? To write a commercially successful film that touches upon some eternal human truth in a manner that is neither trite nor maudlin.

Shakespeare certainly wanted to sell tickets and entertain the masses… groundlings included. There is a great deal of evidence that he was concerned with his plays being commercially successful. Furthermore, his “art” and his shares in the Globe theater made him a wealthy man. What the hell’s wrong with that? You can make the argument that he wrote in all our current genres: teen comedy (MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM); bio-pic (RICHARD III, HENRY IV part 1); sequels (HENRY IV part 2, HENRY V), big-budget action (MACBETH — okay — a bit of a stretch, but there were ghosts, witches, battles, stabbings, suicide), Fantasy (the TEMPEST); Romance (ROMEO AND JULIET), comedy (MEASURE FOR MEASURE), drama (LEAR).

I know that when I sit down to write a screenplay — whether an assignment, a rewrite, or an original — my goals include that the final film be both critically and commercially well-received. I am unapologetic about that being a goal. I’ve gotten the question at film festivals: “Don’t you feel like a sell-out, writing a sequel or adapting some comic book?” No… I feel like a working writer… what I wanted to be since I was twelve. I feel fortunate to have a career in this incredible profession. And I feel like I can always do better… become a better writer and filmmaker than I am now.

And for those who think they should be supported because they are creating “art,” I give you this quote from Twain: “Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.”

Derek:

And let’s not forget, Billy had write his plays carefully so as to not piss off the royals of the day. What a hack!

Ted, I don’t think art/commercial can or should be described in binary terms. I tend to think — if this is worth describing at all — in terms of quadrants, art/not-art running, say, along an east/west axis, and commercial/not-commercial along a north/south axis.

Thus “The Godfather” falls in a quadrant describing it both as art and commercial; “The Pacifier” is not art but it is commercial; “Limbo” is not commercial but it is art; “Surviving Christmas” was apparently neither commercial nor art.

And I think, honestly, that that’s how most people see it.

But to the extent that some perception does exist of film being either one or the other, there is a very simple reason, which is that that’s how the film business is currently constructed.

Major studio production slates are determined almost completely by financial considerations and only marginally by aesthetic considerations; this is more true now than it ever was, with more spent on production, more spent on marketing and more emphasis on pre-selling an unknown quantity into a big opening weekend.

At the same time, there’s an alternate route, so-called “indies,” (whether in fact studio-owned or truly independent), where the game plan is different. Those studios get talent (below the line as well as actors, directors and writers) to work at cut rates, by offering an oasis in which aesthetic imperatives still take precedence over financial ones, the idea being that if a completed and released movie is “good” enough and made cheaply enough, it will find enough of an audience to be somewhat profitable.

So what you have are two completely different worlds — consciously different worlds — and many of us in features attempt to build careers balancing the two.

But when any movie is released, even a casual moviegoer is rarely confused about which world that movie comes from.

Ted:

I wasn’t really disagreeing with you, just being too clever for my own good. I think there is another category outside of the scale: bad script = no sale. Because of that category, a script may be neither art nor commercial. Rather, as you pointed out, just not marketable. I also think the writers are not completely at fault for clinging to this artificial dichotomy. Producers often use “too much of an art piece” as code for “bad script.” For me, if it doesn’t sell, I don’t really care what they call it. I just want to turn out a better piece of work next time. I believe there is home for every good script, whether it has a broad audience or a niche one, if the writer hangs in there with it. I guess the trick for us hangers-in-there is to know whether our script is any good. Hmmm? How do we solve that one?

Trevor,

“To write a commercially successful film that touches upon some eternal human truth in a manner that is neither trite nor maudlin.”

Exactly.

Nobody will care about SIDEWAYS in five years. Everybody will still care about both STAR WARS and THE GODFATHER.

I’m not really sure anyone cares about SIDEWAYS right now.

Louise, I think a lot of people would describe SIDEWAYS exactly as “a commercially successful film that touches upon some eternal human truth in a manner that is neither trite nor maudlin.”

Whether people remember it in five years or fifty is another question, but I think the praise it gets now is for matching precisely that definition.

Ted, good main post.

Doesn’t the argument boil down to a distinction between creating something purely to please the creator (art), and purely to make the most money possible (commercial)?

Even if that is the case, your point is still well taken. There are plenty of writers who love writing commercial films, and don’t long to write something esoteric.

Maybe the art v. commerce argument only works if you want to create things that most people won’t care about.

Craig: No doubt! Had a different royal family been in power, Richard III would have been handsome and a shrewd political player, instead of a hunchback and the greatest villain in literary history.

Damn those studio bigwigs and their silly biases!

HoGo:

It seems like you’re using “art” to mean “good”.

Not sure about that…

Not really, Craig, at least I didn’t mean to.

There’s good art and bad art. I thought MAGNOLIA was pretty dreadful, but there’s no question that it was intended to be art. There’s art which fails, just as there are commercial endeavors which lose money.

I don’t think that acknowledgement contradicts anything I wrote above.

Howard —

Ted, I don’t think art/commercial can or should be described in binary terms.

Neither do I. That was my point. The scale that has “Commercial” at one end and “Art” at the other is demonstrably false. They are both judgments of the quality of a screenplay — but they are judgments of different qualities.

— Ted Elliott

If art is a commercialized product by independent or studio means, it is valuable as much for both, now does it. But if a product isn’t art, would it be valuable enough to warrant commercialization by either?

I, then, claim art is necessarily above commercial value and must be to have any.

Hi. Not a pro, but like the conversation.

Ted:

While you can use Conditional Logic to create a contradiction in order to assert your point (which you have done well in my view), I’d also offer one can use the underpinning of logic - Set Theory - to explore this topic as well. I offer this because it can illustrate several things.

With the Set Theory approach, one creates a set called “Art” and chucks whatever qualifies as “Art” into that box; what’s left over is - obviously - not Art. Same for “Commercial.” In other words, the simplest sets are created by an identity, and what’s left over is not identified. So in this case, you have:

Art/~Art Commerce/~Commerce

That’s about all one can say ‘logically’ in an foundational exploration such as this.

The reason I bring this up is three-fold. First, it tees up HMG’s quadrant framework (which I think is useful). Second, it illustrates how “Art” and “Commerce” can get mixed up in the first place (or indy v. studio, or….); essentially, it’s an implicit intersection relationship. Think of those annoyingly simple Venn diagrams one suffers through in school and never uses again (well, almost never…). In this case, there can be an intersection between the “Art” set and the “~Commercial” set. In fact, there can be four intersections (HMG’s framework). And when one looks at those intersecting sets, they can be led astray in making a false association (which - of course - is what you’re calling out). Third, and why I contributed to this thread, is when one deconstructs the “Art” set (into “something” and “~something”) one can see explicity where the confusion you call out originates.

Best,

Lee

Hi Ted, great post.

I think art is art and commerical is the size of the audience enjoying that art.

Quality of art (to me) is determined by the unity of the elements within the work. That SHOULD apply to commercial work I would think. If it doesn’t, I’ll be a very unhappy writer once I get inside the doors.

I know I personally enjoy commercial movies that communicate on that level.

Lola

I think much of the misunderstanding on this point arises from the fact that in common usage “commercial” and “art” really are mutually exclusive. We describe a work as having one of these qualities only if it lacks the other.

If it’s commercial and artistic we just say it’s good. If it’s neither commercial nor artistic we say it sucked.

If we apply the popular notions about art, commercialism, etc. to Mozart, by these notions, he’d be reviled by critics of the “true artist” as a hack.

Looking historically at the artistic fields of painting, sculpture and music within the European tradition, all of these artistic endeavors were subsidized by the Church or by the Nobility and thus many of our revered artists from these eras would possibly (probably) be thoughtlessly accused of being sell-outs today (replace “Church” with “Recording Company” for comparison).

The art of writing is a johnny-come-lately to the common man. Before Gutenberg’s printing press (1450) made it possible to print many copies of the same text speedily, there was little reason to read and less reason to write unless you were a scribe for the Church or Nobility, or a member of the leisure classes.

Thus, until 1450, the people who wrote for a living weren’t writing creative (artful) material, they were copyists; and the people who were writing creative material weren’t writing for money (since they had enough to begin with).

I suspect (& this is my own opinion) that this historical context flavors much of the modern notion that writing for money is somehow “tainted,” no matter what the conditions.

“I suspect (& this is my own opinion) that this historical context flavors much of the modern notion that writing for money is somehow “tainted,” no matter what the conditions.”

I would argue this is more than your own opinion, Karen; I would assert your observation is true under every circumstance.

It’s amazing to me how many who profess to being “Artists” miss this fundamental reality.

Art is - necessarily - an intersection! An intersection between an object and the receiver of that object. In other words, my invitation to deconstruct the set called “Art” into “something” and “~something” was a bit of a conceit; it cannot be done coherently without introducing a new set of “something else” and “~something else”. And it’s this “something else” set - the patron, the discoverer later in history, the whomever… - that ends up bestowing the title of Art upon the object.

Now, from here one can still seek to define the characteristics inherent in this intersection: what makes the patron/discoverer respond to the object. And this is exactly where many in the self-proclaimed “Artist” set (note suffix to Art) claim their validity as originator. But this becomes an entirely different matter than the one the original poster wanted to address (and rightfully requires its own article/thread).

Lee

Hi— I write mainstream comic books, and I’m often asked “When are you going to write something personal, something artistic?” Which, of course, implies that I’m a cold-hearted hack.

Now I don’t like to think of myself a hack. I love what I do, and I consider myself blessed by the new-agey gods of luck to be able to do this for a living. It sure beats frying french fries and moving furniture around. And my stories are obviously personal, since they spring from my view of the world we live in and of life in general. I don’t see how they could be impersonal.

But as far as ‘art’ goes, I don’t have this fanatic need, prevalent among comic book fans, to champion comics as ‘art’.

In The Salmon of Doubt, Douglas Adams says (and I paraphrase from a patchy memory):

“The idea of art kills creativity. Media are more fun before they get the art stamp, media are more interesting when people think it’s a load of junk. Novels started out as a form of pronography. And when the Beatles started making music, nobody in their right mind would have called it art. But the Beatles were amazingly creative, because they loved what they were doing, and because they thought it was the best fun you could have.”

The same goes for Shakespeare. He wasn’t considered an artistic genius until he was re-discovered by the 19th century Romantics. Before that, clever and discriminate minds considered Shakespeare to be a load of popular tosh.

Which means that, using indefeatable logic, my comic book scripts are like Shakespare’s plays.

Hansegard:

Great points, and I love the Adams quote, RIP.

What comics have you written? If we can’t plug our work here, all is lost. :)

C.

Mazin: A couple of years ago, I wrote a dozen or so scripts for Lee Falk’s The Phantom. Then, in 2003, I quit my proverbial day job and began writing Disney comics (Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse) regularly.

J-Han:

I’ve got an almost four year-old, so I suspect we’ll be reading your work soon. From the man who wrote “Disney’s Rocketman”, this is a compliment. :)

Craig:

Well, I wish both of you lots of happy reading. My dad started reading comics to me when I was about five (and unwittingly sealed my fate as a comic book writer.)

When I was in art school studying advertising, they told us the first year to be aware that fine arts majors mostly thought we were whores, because we did art for money. After 30 years, I thrill at being able to use my creative and aesthetic sense to accomplish a goal beyond simple self-expression—in advertising, I have to sculpt my creativity to support goals, purpose and sales; those are the rules of the path I chose. And if it doesn’t entertain me; it’s not going to entertain anybody else.

The down side for writing for the screen is the nature of the beast—whether it’s good or not has little to do with if it’s given a chance. Money seems to back the tried & true, allowing little $$ for risky ventures. Cutting edge, unknown, unproven seem to be more than Hollywood can handle, no matter what the topic. “Remake City” is learning the hard way that people are unwilling to drive someplace to see something they saw 20 years ago just because it has computer effects and pretty people in it. Two major things are working against creatives today—the sheer volume of people submitting stuff (without a clue about how to craft a screenplay) lessens the chance that an unknown will even be read much less produced; and opportunities are frequently squandered on “celebrity” just because of who they know and where they’re at—no matter that they can’t write/create. Life is short, so spend yours doing what you love; I don’t know anybody who love slinging fries. Comic books are a very special artform, so revel in it. Now I have to go because I’m out of my league.

I was just discussing this with another but on music, and differently. He was deriving music as an economic indicator, and that the free market lends itself to correct the situation if customers are not happy with the product, they then quit buying it. I disagree with that though because our culture has been so saturated towards commercialism and popular arts, that the art being created is already a commercial, “pop” element that diminishes the quality. Not always, but usually from my perspective economics tends to decline art because the art itself isn’t the focal point anymore, economics is. And with the consumer already saturated or growing more and more conscious towards popular arts, pure or uninhibited art (if you want to call it that) could possibly be a thing of the past because of not only growing economic nations, but also because or conscious is aligned further away from non-popular arts or commercial arts. I dunno if that makes sense. I thought it did at the time. It’s awfully difficult from what I can see to make uneconomically influenced forms of art in economically well off nations because it’s everywhere.

My thinking was this: If (Commercial = Not Art) is True, then (Not Art = Commercial) must also be True

That A=B does not necessarily mean that B=A.

A Maple is a tree. Thus, Maple=tree. It does not logically follow that tree=Maple, because tree can also equal Pine.

Just because A=B does not discount the possible that C, D and L may also equal B.

All I know of logic is what I had to learn for a standarized test a long time ago. But if memory serves, when

“If A, then B”

is the statement, the only other statement that must be true is

“If not B, then not A.”

I think it’s called the “contrapositive.”

If a Maple, then a Tree. If not a Tree, then not a Maple.