Some friends of mine were having a conversation on twitter about the best way to market yourself, and it got me thinking, so I wrote down my thoughts.
First we should probably define the two subjects.
Dictionary.com defines art as the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
Marketing is a hard one to pin down in any sort of dictionary, so we’ll just describe it as advertising and selling your set of skills.
My question is this:
Is doing great work for less-than-great product/client furthering mediocrity?
A few similar, but media-variant scenarios to ponder.
1. If you’re a good photographer shooting a sub-talented music artist, there is no doubt you’ll be able to deliver top-quality images to your client, cloaking them in a facade of perceived importance, legitimizing them, in a sense. You’ve done good work and made your client happy, and that’s ultimately the best way to market yourself.
2. If you’re a record producer, and this same client comes to you with any sort of proper budget, you’ll be able to produce, at least sonically, a top-quality record. Again you’ve done great work and pleased your client. They’ll most likely tell everyone they know, which is the purest form of marketing.
3. If you’re a web developer or graphic design guru, you can make almost any product enticing to the right people, regardless of it’s quality. You can use your talent and brilliance to make anything shine.
But what’s the cost? Is your own work cheapened?
Another thing, who determines what’s “great” and what’s worthless? By refusing to do great work for mediocre people, I’m effectively claiming authority on the matter, when it’s really just my own opinion. Who am I to tell someone what they should like and appreciate as art and what they should shun as noise (figuratively speaking)?
I guess it comes down to perception. How is your work perceived? I know I’ve been involved in shows where I could only hope know one would recognize me or remember me, just to make money. People afterward would tell me how good it was, when it was actually terrible in my opinion, and I didn’t know how to agree with them without being dishonest. I’m not great at the “smile and nod” thing, but I gave it my best shot I suppose.
I could probably keep chasing this rabbit, but I have a lot to do today. Let’s get a conversation going. Tell me I’m right. Tell me I’m wrong. Share your opinions. I’ll definitely be responding.
Additionally, are we (creatives) responsible to the consumer because we were part of the plan to dupe them… For instance, if I took a project knowing the client was mediocre / not talented and I made him look incredible from a marketing / web stand point, am I in any way morally responsible for the consumer buying “crap”? Long term how does it affect the credibility of what I do? If I continue to produce websites for people who flop, will my talent be able to withstand those blemishes?
Good questions.
Maybe you are responsible for it. But what if they like it? People need to be told what to like. Most people don’t actually want to think for themselves. We live in a community of outsiders on the “inside” i suppose.
When making a record for someone else, is there a difference between making a great record and doing a great job making an OK record? It’s only so far up to you.
Great topic. I have been involved in my fair share of recording endeavors and songwriting and my opinion is based on one solid, personal, truth. Art is not based in complete subjectivity. This is a common deception. So often, we live under this vail of artistry to cover up the fact that what we’re looking at, listening to, writing or tasting is absolute garbage. Once we get to the point that the end result of art is to PLEASE PEOPLE then we can begin to look at the product, regardless of medium, from a place of objectivity.
Example: I write a song. Why? Because I want to? Okay, I suppose that could be an honest answer but it’s pretty easy (and lame). The reality is that I write a song because I want to create something. Not only that, but I want to create something that I like. Aaahhh… our first crossroad into a world of objective truth. If I don’t like it, it is now bad. Let’s extrapolate. If I create something and I go a step further to say that I’m creating it so that someone else likes it, I’ve now created a much larger world for objection. If that person doesn’t like my art, I’ve failed. Objective failure.
So, what then do we do with the millions of “artists” out there creating subjectively great art but objective crap? I say we get intentional about not working with or for people that we genuinely think have no business working in the medium of their choice. It’s not to say that they can’t create for the joy of creation. Their is an honest artistic quality to that which objectively works as long as they’re happy with what they create. What I’m saying is that the world is full of refrigerator noise and movie posters and the last thing we need is someone else throwing in their hat to be the next Sister Hazel.
If you truly believe that there is a place for great art in the popolaccio then I say get behind it with everything you’ve got. But once we start saying that something’s good so that we continue to get work, we’ve failed as artists. It’s okay to work on crap, but I think it’s important to let the people who create it know that you abhor what you’re doing. Be kind but objective.
The original question that got me into this was asking which will ensure your future success: good work or good marketing?
The best answer is BOTH.
But how we define “future success” determines which is most important.
If future success means being respected for your creative work then obviously good work is the answer. But if future success means making money then I honestly think good marketing trumps quality work.
Simply put, there’s a lot crap out there that is really successful because it has good marketing behind it. Likewise, there are a lot of brilliant unknown artists who don’t have the marketing to get recognized.
I could go on… but again, I think how we define success is paramount in determining what is more important.
I really am pretty bad at what I do because I can’t market a product, be it a conference, album, non-profit entity, or what-have-you without really believing it is something “worth” marketing. On the flip side, I have regularly done work pro-bono for groups that really are “worth” marketing, but have terrible representation, simply because I am so pained by their website or materials. I have a clear conscience, but an empty pocketbook.
Ps – While reading this, I thought of the Hip-Hop Dalmatians from Brown Sugar thinking about having to produce an album for artists that just aren’t worthy of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aH8upEjhm0 Enjoy.
Tim, I agree, but i’m asking if and how the two can coexist.
Jayson, I would say that I’ve failed as an artist numerous times, if art is what I was trying to create. I’ve definitely wasted what I consider to be “good work” on projects that weren’t, in my opinion, worthy of what I was putting into it (I sound so damn arrogant sometimes). As I was trying to write parts or whatever I was doing, I was trying as hard as I could to find inspiration so that I could create something meaningful (if only to me), but the only REAL reason I was doing it was to make money. True artistry isn’t concerned with money. Only expression, acceptance, and survival.
Joanna, I agree. I could ever only be a salesman if I truly believed in the product, and truly believed that the person I was talking to needed it. That’s it.
I had a possible sales opportunity once where I would be selling media products to churches, but I couldn’t really convince myself that any of it was that important, so I wasn’t about to try and convince anyone they needed it.
Man… Tough questions, Evan. I think problem stems from trying to make an absolute truth out of something so subjective. I think that we, as human beings created in God’s image, can take from Genesis chapter one the viewpoint that I think is more direct. God saw after each thing created in the chapter to be “good”; which I think is more on the lines of that it was made from nothing and BECAME something. The value of a created work or anything created should be placed high from the beginning. Not because you appreciate the work itself, but because it was created to begin with.
I’ve fought long an hard with myself about when and where to slip my own opinion into the answer to the question, “So, what do you think (of my completed work)?” and I believe the only true response (and safest) is something along the lines of, “that was good! You must be very proud of what you created!” There shouldn’t be any hint of sarcasm or guilty feelings, because all you are doing is praising the creator for putting themselves out into the subjective world. That takes courage. No matter if you don’t appreciate something or even plain think it sucks. The fact remains that a creative work deserves the same treatment it got from The Creator.
And as for as marketing and quality art coexisting, I have no idea. I’ve done a pretty bang-up job of being mediocre so far with my own art, so there’s never been the struggle of it taking off on it’s own merit. I’ve required good marketing people to do all the hard work.
Jayson, finding some way to measure value in art is a great idea, but pleasing people isn’t the point of art. I think maybe the value of art is in its ability to elicit thoughts and feelings from audiences.
Art doesn’t have to be pretty or make me feel good, and it doesn’t have to be all that accessible to many people in order to work (I’m thinking of Picasso here – many people don’t understand his paintings, and his stuff may not be pretty, but his art is as important as any art has ever been because it says something really profound). What does this song/painting/novel lead me to feel or think about? And if it’s really great, maybe that song/painting/novel can say something important about reality or what it means to be human.
Evan, I think a lot of your particular problem stems from the fact that your work is always collaborative, and you’re called on to bridge this weird gap between art & craft. There’s always gonna be tension there. If there were a solution, you would’ve found it by now.
Maybe the best way to address the tension is to define ‘success,’ as Tim said. If you want to do artistically important things, they probably won’t pay well all the time. And if you want to make money, your work won’t always be artistically important.
Aaron, I think you’re secluding the idea of pleasing people to making people happy. Pleasing people by my definition simply means satisfying. In other words, it’s giving someone what they want. That can be sad, confusing, dark, joyful etc… The point I was trying to make is that if you’re art isn’t accomplishing anything other than allowing you to call yourself an artist, I think it’s a farce. Eliciting thoughts and feelings from one’s audience is accomplishing exactly what the audience wanted thereby pleasing them.
The accessibility of art is, in my opinion, dictated by many different factors. The illustration I used was to point out that even if your art is for yourself, it still maintains the goal of providing that emotional release that you desired upon your embarkation.
Finally, as for the original question as to the coexistence of art and marketing, I really believe that good art markets itself. It’s our own ambitions that force us to seek the approval of the masses (if that’s the goal). But good art always seems to find people because if it truly impacts the artist, then that impact will carry.