I'm an amateur writer and I was thinking about how many books are put out in this day and age. It seems impossible for anything I write to ever be remembered! There is just too many people doing it. This is similar in any art form really. Are there just too many people in the world? As the population grows, an infinitesimally smaller percentage of people will have their art appreciated and remembered. (That isn't the only goal of art i know, but it's depressing.)
If you don't consider quality, meaning, etc., yes there's oversaturation, but that's long been the case. There's documented complaints about photography being too easy and commonplace in the early 20th century. Much of what becomes remembered is a function of luck as much as anything else. You have to be in the right place at the right time, leaving aside various factors like privilege, connections, money, etc. (which are all of a piece, of course). Still, even money can't really buy doing something that resonates with people at a given time, other than sometimes providing some people the means to make it happen. Cheryl Strayed wrote about this (to a writer) some years ago, and the letter is in Tiny Beautiful Things. It may be online as well, via The Rumpus. I don't think being "remembered" is why you make art, though. I think most of us who make art do it because we feel like we have to on some level. I do it for myself, for people I know, and partly as a response to things I see both within art and outside of it. If it gets noticed or remembered, that's something of a bonus, to to the degree that an artist does in fact want those things.
KnightWriter - well said. I write and draw because it is my way of having fun, escaping real life and in the case of Fiction, because the characters demand to come out. The film writing/blogging is simply to bring attention to the casts, crews and movies. Of course, I would like to make my living entertaing others, but for me it really comes down to having fun and coping with life. I think you are correct, there has been as many things to read, watch and listen to for several decades now and I do not do it to be remembered or noticed. I create because I need to.
Darth Guy I like to think children with crayons make cave paintings every day on the walls of their houses. KnightWriter Thank you, great answer. But I didn't say the purpose of making art is to be remembered. Even so, there is hardly an artist in the world that doesn't want an audience of some sort for their art. (Exceptions wouldn include Emily Dickinson, but I really think people like her are on the rare side.) And frankly, I think the statement, 'we make art because we have to' is a little pretentious.
It really isn't. As someone who suffers from a lot anxiety-related issues, making art (photography and film) is one of the only things I can do to relieve those issues. Considering the fact that a lot of artists suffer from mental health issues, I see nothing pretentious in claiming "we have to" when it comes to why we're creating art. For many, it's essentially a form of therapy. And I won't speak for anyone but myself, but for me, it's a hell of a lot more effective than actual therapy (or medication for that matter).
If we are talking about securing a career in art, then nothing has really changed in a generalized perspective. You need good marketing to set yourself apart. That's the "getting noticed part." The part that has changed dramatically is now that you've broken through the first barrier, you have to deal with the harsh reality that there is quite a bit less money once you've "made it." I agree there is something to be said for doing it simply because you love it. But there is also something to be said that supporting yourself from it, even modestly, allows an artist to dedicate full passion, which will allow them a greater and more developed body of work. Rich relatives willing to act as benefactors seems like the easiest route. Have you tried that?
I have two close friends who succeeded as performing musicians. Neither became rich doing what they love, but they've mentored younger musicians. One was nominated for a Grammy. The other is one of the best choral directors in the world. They won't be remembered after they're gone maybe, but they've left a positive mark on the performing arts
My brother has an MFA; he used to have a saying taped to his desk that said, "It is better to write for the self and have no public than write for the public and have no self." I think the same can be applied to art. I don't know that there is an oversaturation; there are more people and therefore more artists.
I love you. There is an undersaturated art form, which is the NSFW art of drawing penis' on the Melbourne Herald Sun. It's easy to dismiss it as purile or not real art, but quite frankly it's the stuff most artists dream of.
Interesting. I'm a performance artist who has sex with scarecrows. I'm ****ing, outstanding in my field.
If you're using "oversaturated" in the negative sense, it's an easy out. "There's so much crap out there that I'm not being recognized for my genius," is sour grapes. I prefer to think about oversaturation in the positive sense and in that way, it's absolutely true. It's absolutely true that there are, for instance, too many movies for anyone to see them all; the exciting part is in dialing in a little closer. There are too many great movies for anyone to see them all. In a way that's sad: I will die having not seen every great movie. In another way it's amazing: I will never run out of great movies to see. There's too much great art for me to plow through in my life. I don't lament that as a negative. I'm down with it. If you're one of those people who thinks that there's maybe one great movie a year or some such nonsense, then doubtless you will lament the oversaturation. Frankly, the quality level of all the areas of art I care about (theater, movies, literature, music, television, etc.) is still insanely high. The problem will be when we're oversaturated with only crap. Right now, we're still being overwhelmed by magic and genius. Love it.
