Your ethics of performing

I posted something related to the ethics of performing in Pele's "Bitter sweet" thread (about her dilemna of performing for a big cigarette company) and did not get any feedback. I am really interested in hearing people's opinion about this so I am posting it again as a new topic.

I would like to look at this from the art/corporate/ethics standpoint. Basically, i have been wondering where to draw the line (as an artist) and when it is that you "sell out". The reason why i have been thinking about it is that my group has the opportunity to do some shows this summer, some of them "corporate jobs". We did a big show for a major casino in the US last year and even if i didn't have a problem back then, i've been thinking about it since.
I see different scenarios: corporate sponsorship, participation in direct advertising/promotion, corporate shows.

If a company sponsors a show, that's fine with me. Business money has always been supporting the arts and i have no problem with that. What band doesn't tour with a big sponsor? Not many (Radiohead comes to my mind, for their last european tour in the big tent) because someone has to lay down the cash and record companies don't always want to do it. Painters, scupltors, writers, have benefactors, either rich individuals or companies.

Doing a corporate show is different. As opposed to the sponsorship deal, here you are directly being hired BY the company to entertain their employees/clients for a special event, an annual meeting, etc. A true artist probably has nothing to do there, representing a corporate entity. It's like Sting singing at the Windows XP Launch in NYC (for some reason that's the only example that comes to my mind). Can you imagine the Beattles singing for Exxon-Mobil's annual meeting or Hendrix playing for General Motors new car launch? I can't. On the other hand, one can argue that if you are a performer, it is no different to be hired by Microsoft or by Joe Shmoe for his daughter's wedding or by a Rennaissance Faire. It is your job and you are just doing your job, regardless who the employer is. (this leads me to ask whether being an artist and being a performer is the same, but that's a totally different topic)(Mmmm.... maybe i'll start it on another thread).

Finally, there is the direct promotion and advertising: Aerosmith singing for the Gap, Blue Man Group playing around in an Intel commercial.... or Pele spinning fire for Camel (dont take this personnaly Pele, we've talked about it and i dont like you less for doing it). After thinking about it, I would tend to say that it is not the artist's job to help these companies sell more products. (please note that I am not discussing the ethics of the companies and what they sell - i.e. a product highly addictive and deadly, or clothes made by young children working in poor conditions and being paid shameful salaries - my point is to discuss whether an artist should do it for ANY corporate entity). I love Blue Man Group and what they do, and i think that Intel commercial is cool to look at, but when i see it i can't help thinking "This is cool but is this what they should be doing?".

Any thoughts?

Nomad

[ 16 April 2002, 02:39: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Nomad,
I hear you ...

here are my thoughts in no order...

Working for a company and organizing these kind of events myself , I really must say that I like hiring performers on these occsaions (magicians, jugglers...). From a company point of view it is just seeking something "different" to entertain our costumers.
I know it sounds awful...

I keep thinking of my dad who is a composer. All his life he refused to work for any commercial purpose . he never sold his soul ... but then again ... he had to have a side job as a head of a university to actually *eat*... cause if you decide to not do these shows, you're missing the big money...

What is the difference between doing it for a corporate event and at a club ??? in both cases you are promoting something : the club / the company ...

Other thought : I think there is a difference between doing your own routine within a corporate "thing" and doing a corporate-related routine ... for example : spinning packs of cigarettes or spinning poi at a camel show ... you know what I mean ?

I think the problem is when the people who pay you start deciding what your art should be like.
they no longer pay for what you can do, they want you to do what they want. Does this make sense ?
When a painter receiveds money to do a portrait of somebody's daughter , he no longer chooses the subject of his art , the expression of his art ... where has his freedom gone ?

Truth is, I don't think it is that easy to live with the money of your artform without compromising ... I cannot think of many artists who do. And those I think of ended up starving...

shine on
Cassandra

To me I think it is down to individual choice... is poi/ staff to you a form of personal/spiritual expression or is it just a way for people to have fun? Even if it is your own form of spiritual expression would it necessarily be cheapened by doing it for a certain company/ exhibition. I think if you have no personal objection to the company you are spinning for then it can still be as valid a form of expression as if you were doing it in a field at a festival.
If I in some far flung realm of fantasy got asked to poi for nestle, I couldn't, as I don't agree with what they do or how they work. I'd be willing however to poi for camel however because I smoke. Its a personal choice thing. Ethics at the end of the day are different for everyone!!

The way I see things is rather cotton dry, black and white. I also have a different view because I do not spin for profit I spin for myself when I want to and how I want to. I do not limit myself to a club or a beach. I do what I do for myself and no other.

Answer me one question, If preforming is your only was of eating, does where your food money comes from mean more than weather you eat or not?

In my opinion those of us who can choose where they eat and when have the luxury of deciding where and when they spin. For those who do not have this luxury, if you dont eat then you dont spin and vice versa. I think alot of it has to do with your ego. You may sit there and say over and over that your ego doesn't matter but it does otherwise there would never be this dilema.

This is how I see it, you dont have to like just accept that it is how I see it.

When all else fails... spin on!

I was thinking about that on the way home and here is one thing I beleive in :
In an ideal world ... if I was in any way an artist, let's say a painter. I'd much prefer people who truely appreciate my art to have my paintaings rather than people who can afford it.
Just the same, I am not happier than when I spin with / for kids and in general when I spin for free and for fun.
That being said, I don't think less AT ALL of the performers / artists who live of their art. In some cases I truely admire them too.
I agree with what's being said by Ray here... It is a very personnal thing and what you think is right or wrong...
In general I like people who take responsibility for their acts. I don't think there is a "good / bad" answer to your question but within yourself ...

I know... that is not very helpfull... just my thoughts

shine on
Cassandra

Here's the thing, I know I am a commodity. I know I get hired because I am new and present something different. I am also very aware that I have to stay on top of my game so that I can keep the paychecks rolling in. I am not being hired to verbally or wear anything that endorses a product.
I am not being hired for my intellect or my opinions. I am a piece of meat that can do fire. Luckily I am a piece of meat who adores what I get hired to do. It is the cold reality of business and that needs to be recognised. It is just business.

Comprimise is really the key. How many people give up their dreams to be swallowed by a job they hate for bosses they aren't fond of? Too many. They gave up. They sold out without giving their dreams a chance to grow.
On the other hand there is the starving artist who has limited funds for immenities, let alone for producing more art (and it is costly) but s/he won't get a job other than doing their art for people who will always dote on it because it would be the stereotypical "selling out". These people don't give their art a chance either, because they are stifling it with morals and pride.
Now, there is the painter who by day paints his heart out with all his love and occassionally fetches a good price for one. By night s/he uses their knowledge working in a gallery, or drawing charicatures on the boardwalk, which is something
s/he doesn't like at all but s/he realises it allows the other art to flourish, and someday the other art will be the primary income. That is comprimise. That is what needs to be done, and there is no swallowing pride or lack of morals there.

I love to perform. Sometimes I don't agree with the standpoint of those that are hiring me, but I don't have to. All I have to agree with is the time limits, safety and amount of pay. As long as I don't look like a walking billboard, then the only person I will truly be representing is myself. For example, I don't particularly agree with this Camel campaign but I will do it out of love for performing and what I do. The money will pay a few bills, get some food, some stuff for my son, a new costume piece and a new set of bola's and supplies for my other businesses. Therefore, I am not selling out because this is doing my art their way to help fund my art as I choose to present it and help support my family.

And if you are going to wait for a company head that will always live up to your moral standings, then you will have a long wait my friend, because while many seem great at first, when you look between the lines, you find they are not and it truly is only business after all...meant to benefit them.

This is just my opinion, I hope it made sense.
Good luck to you my friend!

[ 16 April 2002, 09:25: Message edited by: Pele ]

I agree 100%!

But with what you're saying, what if you were part of a performance group, and part of the performance was to wear a costume you didn't like? What if they needed you to dance in a way thats not necessarily how you'd normally dance because you're a part of a set of people?

What if you were asked to dance nude or partially? *gasp*

NUDE?????
I wouldn't do that so that I can spare my poor audience the agony!
If I am not comfortable in a costume I would try to negotiate and comprimise to get one I like. I have done that before. If it were for a company it would depend on the clothes and how obnoxious they are, but we always have the answer..."Not with fire I don't!"

As for dancing style, yeah I would do that, as long as it didn't involve stripping or something really lewd. Art is all about trying new things and pushing those boundaries for ourselves right?

Heh,

When I just started to get gigs firedancing a friend of mine gave me the slogan "Twirl Fire Naked"

I've been meaning to get it on some stickers. Yeah, if the crowd was right I wouldn't have a problem with that. Enough body paint can hide *almost* anything.

The only stress I felt about the selling out thing was the degree of control I had on keeping the conditions safe, and keeping it as a kind of dance, rather than a very fancy juggling act.

An audience is an audience, no matter why they're assembled they are people who I belive have some apreciation of art at some vicerl level. If not, then I'll just spin, and be happy.

man, i don't give a fart about no sellin out gigs, i say bring em on! i just take that $ and do somethin good with it! my whole life has a purpose, to help the world and the rainforests, so if i need cash i might as well stay on track and do a big fire gig. plus i ALWAYS meet somebody who says, "wow that was real inspiring!" no matter where i perform. lots of people that work in corporations know that they suck. they 're just scared, or on crack! i even did shows for camel! they paid me out the ASS! they flew me all over the midwest! i got to meet some cool folks! i love camel! not!

When you think about it, artists have always been paid to do what they do. It's just a fact of life, it doesn't diminish their profession, nor necessarily demean the person who elects this way of earning an income. Art history is rife with commissioned works that are universally idolised; why can't the same principles be taken with other art forms?

Oh...evenstar has a great point....

***Pele thinking Cistine Chapel***

I don't think Michaelangelo was ever accused of being a sellout.

arashi, my getting the contract for the Camel company, and Adam's having dealt with them is what insipred these questions.

camel rocks, everybody that i met that works there is a musician rock star! the people were so nice! if you're dealing with doug tell him i said hi! ask for lots of $$, cause they got it! i hate cigarretes with a passion! i'm a big sellout!

Arashi--

Ask me off-list sometime about my recent misadventure with Camel.

I don't think that "corporate" is synonomous with "evil"... some corporations are and some aren't. It really should be a case by case basis. It always bugs me when I see backlash against corporations simply because of their size and financial backings. Mostly because it dilutes the case when there really is a corporation doing wrong.

...For example, I wouldn't call cashing checks from the Mashantucket Pequots "evil"...

ahhhh but the mashantuckets are a tribe not a corperation...
(I could get into real trouble here so i want say anything more )

Pere

[ 18 April 2002, 13:01: Message edited by: Peregrine ]

We have a contract with Camel as well, and have taken some flack for it.

My thought is this - get paid really well for doing my art, how I want to, at a high traffic music venue...? Or sit around and bitch about not having any paying gigs?

I don't perform with a Camel logo on my butt. The people who are there are over 21 years old, they can make a responsible choice about whether or not to smoke cancer sticks. Some of the people there don't even smoke cigarettes, they just wanna chill in the gorgeous tent!

I don't feel guilty about performing for Camel. I'm happy to accept corporate money for my skills. It funds our troupe to do what we truly love to do: street theater and 'performative mythology'.

Life is good. Gigs are happening this summer.

I hope everyone is feeling the same good vibe right now... things are getting better.

~*Charly*~
The Cabiri
www.cabiri.org

Pele Said: "I don't think Michaelangelo was ever accused of being a sellout."

he changed his vision of God from a formless celestial cloud to an old man with a beard because the pope told him to.

I think his work in the cistine chapel is widely considered one of the prime examples of a great artist selling out..

Of course, the pope might have had him excommunicated if he didn't comply, so I guess he can be forgiven right?

ahhh, the good old days of christianity.. When Popes were Popes, and the sheep trembled in fear

Sb...I don't think he sold out at all. Being on commission to do something you love is not selling out, that is my point.
And he didn't change his view of god, he painted what he was told to, big difference.

Art History 105 textbook, Pieces of Michaelangelo, Excerpts from his written words. He explained this from what I understand. Him and VanGhogh (sp??) are the only ones I paid any attention to really. There were some random paintings I liked (The Kiss) and, darn, forgot his name, the one who did the soup cans. He was famous for stuff like that, and it isn't selling out. It is creative marketing!