Art is not a democracy

I saw an interview with George R.R. Martin and learned how art should not be a democracy. He was asked if fans influence his writing at any point. He replied “not so much” but the subtext was “absolutely not.”

He explained how it’s frustrating for an artist in Hollywood –a writer, in this case– when audiovisual arts are treated as a product. Scripts need market tests and adaptation so it has traction within a certain audience and market. An artist is not free in this context. It’s impossible to express artistic intuition when external factors are constantly routing your decisions or your finalized work.

It’s one of the reasons I’ve stopped trusting awards for any form of art. Their intention may be to project artistry but suffer the consequence of marketing and a profit-driven mindset. Why are these awards given out yearly? Why is an acting category split in gender while a writing or directing category is not? When sold as a product, a piece of art’s quality needs some form of measurement so the public’s uncertainty of invested time and money is predictable. Awards provide this measurement.

However, in their pure artistic intention, some films, recordings, paintings and books do not become relevant until they’ve passed the test of time; until they are digested individually and culturally after years. Some works aren’t relevant in the time they’re released, but become so much years later. And even in a more pure form, art may not be meant to be appreciated by a mass audience. It may not be meant for a public consensus. Some forms of it are an expression that exists and are appreciated for what they are, nothing more.