I was thinking about the rise of AI and how audiences are looking for authenticity more than ever.. but is still considered "authentic" to work on something purely for external approval or commercial success?
Or is there a spectrum of authenticity where even partially liking or feeling unsure about one's work still counts as being true to oneself?
Can authenticity coexist with discomfort and exploration, or should true art only come from a place of complete passion and comfort?
What do you think?
Discussion (5)
Throughout history, many artists worked primarily for patrons or the church, which were the biggest art funders. They still managed to infuse their pieces with personal style and emotion. Art that resonates tends to reflect some aspect of the human experience, which can coexist with commercial aims.
I dont know, guys... I think there's a real risk of diluting the concept of "authenticity" if we start saying that commercial motives can produce authentic work. Authenticity should come from a place of sincerity, not financial incentive or external validation.
I think you can be motivated by money and still be authentic
I think authenticity and commercial success arent mutually exclusive, but there is a fine line.
you can’t be doing something only for money and expect people to find it genuine. There needs to be at least a sliver of passion or belief in the work for it to feel authentic
In today's world, almost all art has some commercial consideration if it's by someone doing it for a living. Even indie musicians who pride themselves on authenticity need to pay rent! I think we are in a time where the lines are blurred between art for art’s sake and art for commerce.