Why is ‘selling out’ such a taboo in the art world?

Being called a sell-out is considered an insult in the creative industry. Compromising your creativity and changing your style to facilitate a mainstream audience is frowned upon. Yet, when it comes to everything, including art, the world expects success to be measured by money, fame and recognition — attributes which are not recognised to be linked to the needs of an artist.

So, how do you balance the desire for success and money, while maintaining your own creative beliefs?

Creatives and artists are constantly battling between what they want to create and what others want. Making money is the core of everything everyone does, and, at the end of the day, artists need to make money to continue to create art. This issue happens all over the industry. When a hit pop song is on the radio, it is commercially successful. Catchy relatable songs are sometimes more popular than more artistic songs. You’re more likely to hear Dua Lipa on the radio than Lana del Rey, and this isn’t because the latter is less musically gifted. But, if it gives them a boost into the industry, can we blame them for intentionally attracting a wider audience through feeding off popular culture?

The same can be said for artists. I don’t agree with commercial art, but not everyone is creatively inclined and needs a deep and inspiring piece in their home.

Is it fair to judge someone for being a sell-out when it’s their income that’s affected? If the arts were funded, would this even be an issue? Jeff Koons and Andy Warhol are names which are known because they had commercial success. They, to me, are examples of sell-outs. Uninspiring, repetitive, readable. There is no growth, it is all samesy and dull. Here, the evolution of the artist ends with their first creation. Yet, you have to give it to them. They made it.

So, why is it that being a sell-out is a taboo? Well, to put it bluntly, one’s integrity is at risk of being lost.

Art is beyond the paintings you see in homes, prints in shops and photographs in museums. There is an intellectual creativity that requires one to make art and inspire those around them. There is exposure that comes with it. Being uncomfortable. Being yourself.

I think the main issue here is: what is success in art? How do you measure this if it isn’t public recognition? I think this is something that needs to be considered.

If you want to balance out the anxiety of being a sell-out versus creating what matters to you, then focus not on quantity but on quality. Learn and sell. Choosing money over art is not a negative if it does not impact your integrity, morality, and creative worth. You can have both. Just look at Frida Kahlo, Paul Rego and Tracy Emin. They have both success and integrity. So, why can’t you?