Gap Inc. IS the Fisher family.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Isis at on May 03, 2002 at 14:55:47:

In Reply to: Re: But I NEED 20 zillion dollars to make my art! posted by sean on May 03, 2002 at 14:03:44:

The profits made at Gap end up directly in their pockets. What are they going to use those profits for next? Buy an oilfield? Hell, they can probably buy a whole Middle Eastern monarchy at this point. I can't agree that it's not directly connected.

: Granted, the motivation behind the boycott is better and purer, but I couldn't think of a good example, and I think my point is still clear. Gap is only Gap, and the sweat-shop stuff that they're doing is plenty of reason to boycott them if you choose to without dragging in things that they have no responsibility over nor ability to change.

Well, if one were really doing a proper boycott of the Fisher family enterprises, one would boycott ALL the stores in their chain. It's true Gap has no ability to change the Fishers priorities -- all the more reason not to put your money into that corporation.

: Right, but that doesn't mean that you're going to stop buying *Snoop's* records, does it?

Snoop DOGG spelled backwards is G-God. As long as he's not working for Suge Knight, I'll buy his stuff.

You make some excellent points. I'm sorry to respond to such a well-thought-out post with, well, not much -- I just don't think I have anything else left to say. Except this...

: What is the job of an artist, then? To create the art that they choose in their medium, yes? Well, okay, for actors, it's not as hard. (Except that, granted, if you slip out of the spotlight for even just a little while, you risk the ability to get back in each time.) You can act on the street, just like you can play music on the street, and you can paint on the street, and all these other things, with just your principles keeping you warm. And plenty of people have done this and survived.

Here's what I'm saying. Why would someone devote their life to creating art? Is it BECAUSE they want to make a living? Or because they are truly devoted to it and feel (for lack of a less religious term) a calling? There's a difference between making a living, and making a killing, also. Ani DiFranco makes a living (and a rather good one, since she gets an excellent royalty rate from her own label rather than the pennies she'd get from a major one) and maintains her principles. Britney Spears makes a killing, and has the integrity of a willow branch.

If one is going into an artistic field for the primary reason of making a killing, I'm sorry, I don't respect that. If your only goal is to make money, there are much more honest and effective ways of going about that. Become a businessman. Don't become an artist just to distract the public with entertainment while secretly screwing them over with your obscene capitalistic ambitions.

: But are you actually suggesting that any filmmaker -- especially the Coen brothers, who have never wasted a time as far as on-screen production value goes -- could spend the rest of his life just making movies funded by credit cards?

If he really WANTED to, yes. If he was creating for the sake of creation, yes. Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't be compensated for what they do, or that they have to give it all away free to the people. I'm just saying if something really MATTERS to you, money shouldn't be your PRIMARY concern -- certainly not more important than your values or your integrity.

If you were a director who was told that you'd never be funded again, you'd never be able to make a movie for more than $50,000, would you then go out and get a 9 to 5 job at Enron to make some more cash? It's fine if that's what you would do. I'm just saying perhaps you shouldn't be admired as a role model, or someone worth listening to, if that's your first concern -- and if you're not a role model, and you're opinion isn't to be followed, why would your name brand value on a product mean anything anyway?

I mean, if you're just a capitalist bastard, great, but it doesn't make me want to buy the product -- AND it makes me suspicious of the motives behind everything else you put out.

: So now we come to question of, how to make the movies that a person wants to make? Different directors have had different solutions. Barry Levinson does big studio work -- "Toys", "Sphere" -- in order to pay for smaller films -- "Liberty Heights", "Wag The Dog". Spike Lee did Nike commercials for a while. George Lucas made a lot of toys, and then made movies full of even more toys. The Wachowski brothers wrote and sold "Assassins" to do "Bound", and jumped from that to "The Matrix". Steven Spielberg put Reese's Pieces into "E.T." because they paid more than M&Ms.

Actually, M&M's wouldn't let him use their name, I thought. And Drew Barrymore made "Scream" so she could make "Ever After", and they're both shitty movies. That stuff cuts both ways. I understand your point though.

: The Coen Brothers have been doing commercials for years, Kate, and since their names aren't on them, how can it possibly have any standing on their name? Isn't it actually far preferable than having them waste their times on studio nonsense just so that every third or fourth movie from them can be a "Fargo"? I mean, I understand your point and all, it just seems a little naive.

Well, really, I was just entertaining myself by ranting and got backed into having to seriously justifying it. Besides which, naive means "childlike and lacking guile", and I can dig that. I prefer "hopeful".

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]