art versus commerce

Art versus commerce in terms of animation I guess is the Brothers Quay versus Disney. I love the Brothers Quay animation films – they were a major inspiration to me on my foundation course last year.  I think they are brilliant in terms of models and lighting effects, and atmosphere in general.  However, the brothers are typical fine artists, and when you try to figure out a plot in their films it leaves you a bit brain-dead, and when they talk about the plot of their films it leaves you even more brain-dead. I remember seeing an interview with them, where they talked about the few commercial pieces they have made, one of them being Peter Gabriel’s Sledgehammer video.  They said something like “it was one of our deals with the devil” – done purely to pay the rent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JajPuTn8IHM  - link to Rehearsals for Extinct Anatomies, one of the Brothers Quay’s films.

Most fine artists do this- even Andy Warhol’s famous Pop Art pictures of Marilyn Monroe were done just to make a bit of money, as he knew the stuff he was doing for his own enjoyment had no commercial value at that time. 

Obviously Disney is art, but art made for commercial purposes only, therefore the stories are never too complex, and the atmosphere is always bright and lively.

I do think, in term of films in general, that you can have a cross over between art and commerce.  For example, yesterday I watched Skyline (if you havn’t seen it yet, count yourself lucky).  It seemed to me to be one of those films with a high special effects budget made purely to make money.  The story was non-existant, and there was no art as far as I was concerned.  But there are other films which combine the two.  Pan’s Labyrinth is a good example – a lot of money and work was put into the making of it in order to realise a vision Guillermo del Toro’s, not just to make money.  He obviously expected it to sell too, but the film really was a piece of art.