Does "artistic freedom" even exist?

I was just sitting here reading this interview with Dušan Makavejev in one of our local weekly magazines.
So, I was thinking about that era when Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus were actually trying to do something more than just churn out cheap, low-budget action flicks and those cheesy sex comedies they were famous for. It’s kind of funny looking back, because Cannon Films had this reputation for being total bottom-of-the-barrel trash, but there was this one moment where they actually tried to chase some serious artistic credibility. They decided to pivot away from the usual grindhouse stuff and went so big that they basically handed Jean-Luc Godard complete creative control along with a massive million-dollar advance just to see what he could cook up for them. It was such a wild, unexpected move for a studio that usually just focused on the quick buck.
All they ever managed to recover was a single reel of film, featuring nothing more than a recording of Norman Mailer reading aloud. Macbeth 😁

I’m just sitting here catching up on Darak Macan’s latest column over on Strip Vest.
He’s talking about how Kevin Eastman hit it big after that massive commercial success with his comic book. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles So, he basically rounded up some of the absolute best artists out there, handed them tens of thousands of dollars upfront, and gave them complete creative freedom with a one-year deadline—all just to bundle their work together into a single graphic novel.
It’s been an entire year, and honestly, it feels like only two people actually stepped up and pulled something together. 😁

I was just sitting here scrolling through GameSpy, catching up on their list of the 25 absolute dumbest moments in the history of the gaming industry.
A good chunk of those "moments" actually ties back to the legendary... Romero-IonStor-Eidos-Daikatana Honestly, what an absolute disaster.
So, back in the mid-nineties, id Software really managed to change the game, largely thanks to... DoomI'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that—it looks like your message might have been cut off! If you were trying to share something or ask a question, please feel free to send it over again. I’m all ears and ready to dive into whatever you've got on your mind! QuakeBack then, the genre was practically synonymous with the first-person shooter, and its founding fathers—John Carmack and John Romero—were treated like absolute rock stars, with everything they touched turning to pure gold. But, naturally, Romero got a little too caught up in the fame, eventually leaving id Software to strike out on his own and launch his own studio, IonStor. His publisher, Eidos Interactive, basically threw millions of dollars at him, treating him like royalty and indulging just about every extravagant whim he had.
I can't help but find myself constantly drifting back to this dream of a developer's utopia—a place where you have absolute, unbridled creative freedom, and the only rule you ever have to follow is that Design is the Law. Design is the LawSo, John Romero went out and bought up the penthouse in one of those ultra-exclusive skyscrapers in Dallas, decked it all out with high-tech gear, a massive glass skylight, and these heavy-duty mechanical metal shutters—because, let’s face it, game developers generally have a complicated relationship with natural light, don't they? :) After launching this whole thing with a massive, over-the-top marketing blitz, he officially kicked off work on... I honestly can't stop thinking about the absolute disaster that was Daikatana. It’s one of those legendary failures that just stays with you, isn't it? You look back at everything that went wrong during its development, and it feels like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone involved was just trying their best to steer through a hurricane. It’s such a shame, really, because there was so much potential there, but instead, we ended up with a game that just couldn't find its footing.I honestly feel like we’re on the verge of seeing a game that is going to completely redefine our expectations, setting such high standards for gameplay that it might just leave every other FPS in its dust.
The whole saga surrounding the development of Daikatana was a total nightmare that dragged on for four grueling years, during which Eidos essentially flushed forty million dollars down the drain at IonStor, only to end up with a mediocre game that everyone forgot about almost immediately. 😁

Look, I know not every single example comes from the world of cinema—but they all share this strikingly obvious common thread that only serves to reinforce one of the fundamental laws of the universe:

Let’s be honest—the idea that artistic freedom actually exists is nothing more than a beautiful myth! 😁

I mean, we’ve all heard those endless urban legends about those ruthless producers and studio heads who basically bully directors into cramming extra "gratuitous nudity and violence" into their artistic visions just to move more tickets. 😁
Look, I'm certainly not standing here claiming that those shady producers don't exist—they definitely do—but if we want to be truly objective about this, I really think we need to take a moment to look at the other side of the coin.

New Hollywood didn't go down the drain just because George Lucas decided to step in and change the game. Star WarsHonestly, things really started to go downhill once Cimino completely lost the plot. Heaven's Gate It’s basically the ultimate product of absolute creative freedom, born from a world where nobody was actually watching the bottom line.

...
Is the concept... When you start thinking about artistic freedom, it really makes you wonder where we draw the line between pure creative expression and everything else. It’s one of those heavy, swirling topics that seems to change depending on who you ask, but I’ve always felt there's something deeply personal at stake when an artist tries to push the boundaries of what's acceptable. Sometimes it feels like we're constantly balancing on this thin tightrope, trying to protect the right to create without losing sight of the impact that work has on the world around us. It's a bit of a messy, complicated dance, isn't it? Personally, I tend to lean toward giving creators as much room to breathe as possible, though I definitely recognize how tricky things can get when different perspectives start clashing. Did some lazy, talentless "artists" actually come up with this whole concept just to have a convenient way to mask their own lack of skill and work ethic?

.................................................. ......
Actually, that's not quite right. Heaven's Gate I honestly don't know what to say about this one. Heaven's GateSo, this first one is actually an Errol Morris documentary. My bad!

When an "artist" suddenly finds themselves sitting on a mountain of cash with zero supervision, it doesn't actually spark any creativity—it just provides them with endless opportunities to blow through it.

What we’re looking at here is pure financial investment, nothing more. It isn't about cultivating an environment where artistic freedom can actually explode. An investor’s goal isn't to back a piece of art by guaranteeing creative liberty; they want a return on their capital. They want profit, and they get it by betting on an author who's already proven they can deliver.

Artistic freedom is usually just a reaction to restrictive conditions or a shift in how we perceive the world. It’s a process, not some static state you just achieve. But, anyway, what were we talking about... art in film, comics, and video games... 🙄 😉

So, where exactly in your argument did you actually prove that artistic freedom doesn't exist...? 😕

I mean, without even realizing it, you've basically broken another unspoken rule: "More is never too much."

It doesn't hurt my ass ....................................

Richard Hernandez13 said:Did lazy, untalented "artists" just invent the whole concept of artistic freedom as a convenient way to mask their own lack of skill and effort?

I mean, I’m almost tempted to agree with that. In my humble opinion, artistic freedom and actual quality tend to be inversely proportional. There are probably exceptions to that rule, though—maybe?

In the example you just gave, we're talking about financial investments, not at all about setting the stage for artistic freedom.

I have to disagree that those were strictly financial investments—in those first two cases, it’s pretty much undeniable. Neither the folks at Cannon Films nor Kevin Eastman weren't actually looking to see a return on their money.
There's also this concept called a patron, isn't there?

They basically told the artist, 'Here's some cash, just bring us whatever you come up with.' Well, these guys took the money and ran without delivering a single thing.

So, why did they do it?

…
And honestly, what on earth does 'creating conditions for artistic freedom' even mean?!?
It sounds a bit too much like romanticized nonsense to me. Are you perhaps one of those people who thinks Vincent van Gogh was the only "real" artist because he was starving, creating out of pure suffering, and never sold out (quite literally)? 😁
If creating conditions for artistic freedom even exists as a concept, shouldn't the artist be the one responsible for making it happen?

is exactly why I started this whole thread. Because every kind of freedom—even artistic freedom—comes with a side of responsibility, something a huge number of so-called 'artists' seem to completely forget.

Since filmmaking is such an incredibly expensive endeavor, it strikes me as the perfect subject for a deep dive into the balance between artistic freedom and artistic responsibility.

Douglas Robinson12 said:I’m almost ready to agree with that. In my humble opinion, artistic freedom and actual quality tend to be inversely proportional. Though, I suppose there might be some exceptions to that rule?

Those exceptions are actually what we consider true works of art—which is exactly why they’re so incredibly rare.

😁

I don't buy the idea that money is what drives someone to work hard, regardless of the field—whether it's art, film, sports, or whatever else you want to call it. If you hand someone $40 million and tell them to make something brilliant, all you're going to get is some mediocre mess. If a person isn't hungry for creativity, all the cash in the world won't inspire them to create a masterpiece. But you can absolutely do the opposite. That’s how everyone becomes famous anyway. They prove themselves while they're young and broke.

Neither the folks at Cannon nor Kevin Eastman were ever counting on seeing a dime back.

But you said you wanted to boost the artistic street cred of their production house, Cannon
A "return" doesn't always have to be about the cash. To me, anything done with intention is an investment—and, obviously, there's a risk attached to that.

And what on earth does "creating conditions for artistic freedom" actually mean?!?

I just meant it in the sense that art isn't some commodity you pick up at a department store where you just point and say, "Yeah, wrap up five pounds of that, please."

So, you actually called it a financial investment.

I guess I meant it more in the sense that art isn't just some commodity you pick up at a department store where you can just ask them to wrap up five pounds of whatever you're buying.

But honestly, if you think about it, countless masterpieces that we all blindly accept as the absolute pinnacle of world art were actually created because someone commissioned them. It’s pretty much the same way you’d order five pounds of something at a big-box retailer.

Even some of the most legendary and critically acclaimed films aren't any exception to that rule.

(Personally,) I think the absolute peak of American cinema was mostly during the 30s and 40s. You had that rock-solid studio system in place and those super strict genre rules that just worked. Not to mention the golden era of Hong Kong cinema either. It’s a similar story with Akira Kurosawa—he was at his absolute best when he was channeling the spirit of Ford Motor Company and leaning into those classic western vibes. Once he got total creative freedom, he ended up making a pretty miserable film like >. Or look at Wim Wenders; the more money he had on hand and the more "free" he felt because of it, the worse his movies seemed to get. He even mentioned how traumatic his time working in the Hollywood industry actually was. On the flip side, Dashiell Hammett produced much better stuff than almost anything else coming out after that period. This pattern seems to hold true for a lot of pop music too, which I honestly believe contains some of the greatest songs ever written—everything from Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Richard Rodgers, and Heart... (all that Broadway and Tin Pan Alley magic) all the way through to Burt Bacharach, David, Phil Spector, Carole King, and Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller... (that whole Brill Building pop sound, which was really just an extension of the Tin Pan Alley tradition). Even a legend like Lou Reed started out early in his career churning out teen hits on demand for Pickwick Records (which was basically just the "poor man's Brill Building"). It was such a polished craft that you can still recognize it even in his later "anti-pop" stuff, like in >. And don't even get me started on classical painting...

I've always wondered, were Bacharach and the rest of those legends actually sitting down to write their hits during a regular nine-to-five grind? Or was their process something else entirely? 😁

Pretty much. That building is actually still standing today. I’m picturing that whole Broadway vibe and that classic 50s cinema feel, just a few blocks away from Times Square. Do you remember the movie Heart of My Heart? Ileana Douglas plays a character who was actually inspired by Carole King's life story.

...it feels like Turturro is playing the role of Spector, while Matt Dillon is giving off those real Brian Wilson vibes.

robybaggio said:I honestly don't think money is enough to be the primary driver behind someone's passion for their work...

Of course it can't. Money just covers the bills. 🙂

There’s such a thing as artistic freedom... take Woody Allen, for instance.
For decades now, he’s just been making movies exactly how he envisions them, working with the same producers over and over—Rollins and Joffe
who are always willing to get behind his projects, even though they know they won't make much money (okay, let's be real, basically nothing) and they'll never actually have a say in what the final cut looks like.

Reading the intro post... Richard Hernandez13 has some decent premises, but the conclusion is just pure sensationalism...😁

Henry Bennett53 said:Look, there’s such a thing as artistic freedom—just look at someone like Woody Allen.
The guy’s been churning out movies for decades exactly how he envisions them, strictly following his own vision...

But does that actually guarantee anything is any good? Honestly, I don't think so.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Artistic freedom is a myth!!! 😁
...
Did lazy, talentless "artists" invent the whole concept of artistic freedom just to mask their own mediocrity?

Oh, absolutely. Lars von Trier is the perfect example of that.😁

kokakoka said:Sure, Lars von Trier is the ultimate proof of that. 😁

You're missing the point. Maybe you don't dig Lars, but using him as an example is a total swing and a miss...