Related Articles
Throughout history, many artists have grappled with the tension between making money and maintaining artistic integrity —becoming financially well-off or remaining true to their creative spirit.
That’s the “starving artist” mentality, which many artists today, be they musicians, actors, writers, etc., still deal with. Their fears are understandable. Record labels, movie studios, publishing houses, etc., must achieve specific financial metrics, naturally making them more risk-averse. However, I believe that moving forward, courageous content will outperform capital alone.
Snapshot of Risk Aversion on the Business Side of Art
Many of the world’s most famous artists faced rejection in their careers.
The famous French impressionist painter Claude Monet “was rejected often throughout his youth by the Salon, France’s state-sponsored art gallery.” The Beatles got turned down by Decca Records. Ne-Yo was cut from Columbia Records.
These are just a few examples of many artists throughout history who were hit with rejection but went on to achieve massive success. While we can’t know for sure what exactly went on in the minds of those who rejected these artists, in my view, the rejections likely came down to risk aversion. When it comes to the business side of art, projects have to make money. From my observations, record label executives, casting directors and other decision-makers on the business side of the art world tend to stick with what they’re familiar with rather than stray from it because often, the familiar is the safest financial bet. Reporter Alexandra Canal put it well in a Yahoo Finance article: “There’s a reason why Hollywood relies so heavily on sequels — it shows them the money.” Canal was referencing sequels in the movie industry, but I believe that statement applies to other areas of the entertainment industry as well.
Why Traditional Entertainment Companies Should Pay Attention to Courageous Content
I believe that history has shown how important it is to take a bet on courageous content. Returning to the example of Monet, he teamed up with other artists rejected by the Salon and organized the First Impressionist Exhibition in 1874. The event, as noted by the National Gallery of Art, “was not a commercial success; few paintings were sold. Nor was it a critical success.” However, the National Gallery of Art explained that the group, called the Société Anonyme, “disbanded, but the circle of artists endured. Over the course of seven subsequent independent exhibitions, they became known as impressionists. Today, their paintings remain among the most recognized and beloved works of Western art.”
The Rolling Stone Culture Council is an invitation-only community for Influencers, Innovators and Creatives. Do I qualify?
According to a research paper in the European Journal of Political Economy, “The government-controlled Salon ended in 1880, when the Republicans had just obtained the political majority and adopted reforms in favor of laissez faire policies and against state monopolies.” The Salon no longer exists, but the paintings of Monet and other artists it rejected do. While it’s not accurate to say that the Salon’s demise was solely due to its rejection of impressionists, in my view, that rejection arguably put it on the path to cultural irrelevancy. I believe the Salon is a cautionary tale for the traditional entertainment companies of today —if you don’t carve room for courageous content, you risk becoming obsolete in the cultural zeitgeist.
The emergence of the platform economy has democratized access to making a living out of art, and if the record labels, movie studios, TV networks and other traditional entertainment organizations don’t take a gamble on courageous content, chances are, that content could make it big on a nontraditional platform. The show Squid Game, for example, was rejected by studios in South Korea but eventually landed a Netflix deal and has achieved extensive success. More than 15 networks turned down the show Stranger Things, only for Netflix to pick it up.
Leeway to Take Creative Risks Is Increasingly Widespread
Historically, success through traditional avenues is what enabled artists to take more creative risks. For instance, long after André 3000 reached commercial success as part of the duo OutKast, he released his album New Blue Sun in 2023, which features him playing the flute. Beyoncé released her first country album, Cowboy Carter, in 2024. In both cases, I believe it was the success of these artists through traditional avenues that gave them the leverage they needed to be able to take on more creative risks.
But today, artists don’t necessarily need to pay their dues to earn leverage that gives them space for more creative pursuits. On platforms like SoundCloud and YouTube, they can take creative risks from the get-go — and without having to get permission from anyone. Taking creative risks has paid off for some. Consider the artists who got their start by releasing music on SoundCloud, which include some of the most well-known names in the music industry today, such as Billie Eilish, Lizzo and Post Malone.
Artists have greater control of their paths these days. They no longer need to secure a record deal with a major label or sign a movie contract with a major studio to launch their careers. All they really need, I believe, is courageous content and a platform.
Andy Warhol once said, “Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.” To avoid becoming obsolete, traditional media companies should embrace courageous content. That, in my view, is what will constitute “good business” in the years ahead.
