Switching onto art, culture and politics

I read something the other day that really disturbed me.

It was in a review of Hancock that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, and it was something that Will Smith said. He was talking about how he selects film roles, and how he studies successful Hollywood films. "Nine out of the top 10 biggest movies of all time have special effects; eight out of 10 have creatures in them; seven out of 10 have a love story. So if you want a hit, you might want to throw those in the mix. I just study patterns and try to stand where lightning strikes."

In one way, this comment made alot of sense to me. It explains why Will Smith is one of the biggest actors in the world. He hasn't had a flop since Bad Boys in 1995. He can "open" films - which means that he's one of the few actors who is proven to attract enough box office sales to ensure that this films come out at number one at the box office on their opening weekend. That makes him one of the most bankable stars, if not the most bankable, up there with Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise.

And this is what is so wrong with contemporary arts and culture. Just like Will Smith sees his role as to "stand where lightning strikes", to continue to make box office gold and Hollywood richer, so many creative people see their role as furthering their own career, getting rich, getting famous, aspiring to work for the best and biggest advertising or film or record company.

It's the ultimate in cynicism.

This is what our society does to creative people - tells them they should be spending their energies to make companies richer, consumer products better and the real creative world poorer.

This is what happens when something as amazing as art is turned into an industry. This is what happens when we go to the movies, or to a commercial art gallery, or buy a track off iTunes - we engage with art as an industry, as a commodity, as merchandise, as property.

How much human creativity, humour and intelligence is wasted on advertising? On films that keep Hollywood's cogs spinning? On just making stuff? On selling the idea of consumerism? On switching people off from the world around them?

Capitalism fucks up culture. We have to unfuck it.

Of course, it's every artists' dream to be able to make a living out of their chosen creative area. But what if we don't want to participate in the "market" of art? I don't want my art to be seen as a unit of currency, that is valued and bought and traded by rich people who then place it in storage, or display it in their waterfront mansion. I don't want to create art that reinforces an ideology of consumerism.

I want to see art used to benefit the community and not for profit; that is forward-thinking, independent and critical, not reactionary. I want to see an art world that values sharing and solidarity, not competition and elitism, that switches people on and connects them. I want to be part of an art world that is offering solutions to the global mess, not continuing to be part of the problem. I want to be part of a counter culture, not a culture that reinforces the status quo.

There's nothing better that creative people can do than lend their talents and skills to progressive causes that are socially useful and enriching. This is the challenge that confronts all creatives - to not trade our creative dignity, our human dignity for a high wage at whatever random bullshit company. To instead use art to create a better world.

But we're up for it.

Originally published in Music Feeds, Issue #3, 30 July - 2nd Aug, 2008.