Many people in the "creative arts" look at many in business with "suspicion", with good reason - the profit motive can dangerously stunt creativity. Let history speak...

Mr Kerle criticises George Orwell for criticising the use of "hackneyed metaphors", in the latter's classic essay "Politics and the English Language"(1946) : "It suggests those artists who propose commercialization as a way forward are making a pact...with the criminal classes."

I don't think Orwell suggests any such thing.

Rather, I think, he was warning against the abuse and misuse of language, especially in politics - which too often has a "pact" with business commerce.

It is this "pact" which often endangers creativity - so is it any surprise that creative artists treat both business and politics with "suspicion" ?

In that same essay from Orwell it says : "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".

Could this also be true of "Business language" ?

Richard W. Symonds
THE JOAD SOCIETY
England

"Those with occupations such as academics, writers, artists, arts consultants are in the main privileged in that they understand to a great degree the processes of creative exploration and production in one form or another and derive a living from it."

So -
Printers who reproduce, in accurate colour great art works for general commercial consumption,
Car makers who take the design output of a stylist and incorporate or turn it into a family sedan,
Writers of Pop Songs and Movies produce a "commercial" output (a "commercial" content which might well have been absent from W.A. Mozart's output but was certainly not ignored by his father, J.G.L. Mozart).
Or
Software designers who produce well balanced user screens for commercial companies to use in their computer applications.

Are such roles any less "artistic" than the roles of "academics, writers, artists, arts consultants"

"Adding value" to the human state is what commercial entrepeneurs do.
Call it marketing, product design or packaging it does not matter.

"academics, writers, artists, arts consultants " do not have the monopoly on "good taste" or "good art" and should, likewise, be "Adding value" to the human state.

The Bauhaus represents the best of German design - and alot more is produced by "enreprenuers" than "fine artists".

World reality - entreprenuers do not rely on "artists" - they are "self sufficient".

Many Artists rely on the "philanthropy" of entreprenuers -

Oh how the politics of "envy" manifest themselves in strange ways.

There was a saying among our wheatgrowers during the Great Depression, watch out for the smart-arse farmers who are too friendly with the buyers, Bunge, Dreyfus, Cargills and others. These smart-arses, took the okay from the government, kidded along the buyers to grow more wheat to get out of trouble. Such proved a disaster, and it from an ntellectual view it took the farmers to take on what the French term Agrarian Socialism, just joining together and holding and storing their grain living off the farms forcing the government to grant stabilisation guaranteeing a fair price for the grain.

Certainly times have changed, but not the remedy to get out of trouble, which means either unionising or lobbying, the latter what the American Midwest farmers do, George W' Bush during the last election having to guarantee the graingrowers 80 billion dollars over the next ten years to gain the MidWest vote.

The same can be done through unionising, joining together and telling John Howard you have either got us or neither?

But sadly though our graingrowers grow much more wheat than ever, modern machinery means that there are few too graingrowers to make much difference to the Liberal vote. Stiil and all, agrarian socialism or joining together is still the way for farmers to go. Only hope the young cockies can get the message, because looks like they if the don't, they could be going down the drain.

For thousands of years, the paymasters of artists were the ruling classes of each civilization. Art was most commonly used for the furtherance of political and religious aims. Art heralded the accomplishments of rulers or defame their enemies, or it enhanced the glory of whatever particular God was in vogue at the time.

Artists were often forced to work within narrowly defined artistic limits where artistic freedom was either openly discouraged or banned outright. It was not until the European Renaissance that some privileged artists of great reputation were able to slip the collar of artistic regimen but even these men had to consider the tastes of their patrons when contemplating their artworks.

By the 19th Century, leading artists were defying convention and seeking their own artistic styles without seeking the approval or sanction of the ruling classes or the church. The idea of the artist as rebel and social critic had been born. But artists now had a new master to whom they had to pay some homage to if they wanted to eat. That new master was the newly powerful capitalist middle class who now controlled much of every nations economy.

It is therefore hardly surprising that the more unsuccessful artists bitterly resent their dependent status on the merchant class, who they consider to be crass and uncultured. But the successful artists are to busy pocketing their generous stipends to care too much, however much they may nod their heads politely towards the passionate arguments of their less successful compatriots. The advertising executives and their artist mates who engineered the brilliantly successful “Joe Camel” promotion, which targeted children for a product known to be cancerous and addictive, clearly displayed the symbiotic relationship of successful artists who’s humanitarian principles can be bought and the greedy entrepreneurial merchant prices.

Once again, the savvy disciples of Mammon have shown themselves to be considerably smarter and talented than the finger wagging adherents of noble Idealism.

As are many artists, so are many entrepreneurs, misunderstood?

Key word between the two meanings maybe felt in the ways either or both, seek to "stimulate and motivate change"

Artists are more often creative, innovative, have vision, and are motivated by a certain focus or view, that they may wish to express - have others see .... be influenced by ...

entrepreneurs are more often creative, innovative, have vision, and are motivated by a certain focus or view, that they may wish to express - have others see .... be influenced by ...

As criminals, neither fit the bill unless they are being in some way unethical or dishonest?

I think we maybe wrongly labelling all "entrepreneurs" as cheap "salesman", of the capitalist, or "con-artist" - rip-off kind?

www.miacat.com

Steve Visard, He was an Artis, and a buisiness man,and he still roams free, and still rich, makes you think The Mafia is making a come back in a civilised way, who needs ethics if you are on his team.You can Play funny bugger's on TV, and you can ripp off unsuspecting share holders for your own gaine. Be a Share holder of one of the many "Toll Ways" and wonder why you still pay Taxes.There are Too many Elites and Artists with their snouts in the public troph, Starve them, with their Ideas and reason, they will never survive. Argument concluded.