|
Well... I suppose that it depends on your perspective if you were to say that Aerosmith were a bunch of 'sell-outs'. I would still have to call them 'artists'.
The large majority of what we consider to be 'great art' in the world is as a result of either a.) an artist doing the art for his/her religion or b.) an artist doing the art for some rich individual or corporation.
Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo (no, not the ninja turtles) were all at various times in their life in the employ of the Medici's, a family so wealthy and powerful that they can certainly be compared to some of the mega-corporations of today.
Whether they could afford to make a living 'selling their paintings' or not was irrevelant. The thing that artists did (and continued to do, from Rembrandt to Jan Van Eyck to Andy Warhol) was work for rich patrons who often commishioned them to paint or sculpt portraits, statues, or landscapes.
When Michelangelo won the commission to paint the sistine chapel, no one wandered around saying "Man, I can't believe that Michelangelo is such a sellout. That guy is so corporate now. I liked his earlier stuff *way* better..." etc, etc...
Granted, comparing Aerosmith to Michelangelo is a bit of a stretch, but the concept remains the same: They are no different when it comes down to financial motivation.
Yes, they love their art, and do it for the sake of art, but that is why they are artists, and not making their millions as CEOs or truck drivers, or whatever the hell it is that Steven Tyler would do if he didn't like singing....
|