To make my art or to work for the readers? (For a profits-intended work)
I want to make my art, to express with no limits. However, I also need to profit with it. If I sell my art purely, the readers might not understand, like or be interested in it, and thus resulting in low sales, although I would like very much what I've done. If I want more sales, I would have to water it down with what the public likes/expects, thus my "art" wouldn't be "pure" (original), but a mainstreamy production. Thus, if I need to put only what the public likes and avoid putting what the public might dislike, I would simply be indirectly working for the readers, always having to please them, or else...
But by "to make my art" I do not in any way mean "to ignore quality standards", it's exactly the opposite; it actually refers to content: it's too nichey, and everyone knows that nichey = low sales, compared to the mainstream.
So I feel divided: one side of me really wants to be free to make my nichey art, while the other side needs the profits (to be used in another project) that this nichey art is not much likely to give and thus needing to change it.
How do I get out of this?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/31640. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
I think this is a false dichotomy. Art is a form of communication. It fails if it does not communicate. We hear a lot of talk about "expressing yourself" but that is hollow unless you are expressing yourself to someone. We are social animals. We strive to make ourselves understood to others. Good art is art that communicates, that is not only expressed but received. Art that is not received is bad art. (There is a lot of bad art in the world.)
This does not mean that everything that communicates is art, of course. Nor does it mean that the best art appeals to the widest audience. But good art appeals to a substantial audience, at least, an audience large enough to live on.
Of course, not all art is appreciated in its day. Sometimes even the most effective art is stymied by the whims of fashion and its greatness is only recognized after the artist is no longer around to make a living on it. But we should not exaggerate this. Most good art is appreciated in its day. Most good artists find a way to express their vision within the limits of the current taste. That is part of the craft of art.
Art is the expression of profound vision. Most of us do not have a profound vision to express. But those who do have a profound vision need to learn a lot of craft in order to express that vision successfully.
If you do have a profound vision, it is likely that it will express itself in all the work you do. Not certain, I suppose. You could work in an utterly cynical manner to appeal to the popular taste without any trace of vision. But if you have the craft to appeal to the popular taste and the vision to produce art, you should have the tools to create art that is popular enough to make a living from. If you have the vision but not the craft, you can only produce failed art. If you have the craft and not the vision, you can at least produce effective entertainment.
Most of us, of course, don't have either the vision or the craft to pull that off. But my inclination is that if you have the vision, it will come through in any honest work you do. Therefore, focus on the craft, aim to write popular stories, and let the vision come through if it is there.
EDIT: Bye the bye, boarding school for wizards was a very niche concept, and at least 50 years out of date (who goes to boarding school any more?). And then it wasn't.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads