Time and again, we are confronted on television by many aged faces—with all due respect—repeating the same phrase with arrogance and regret: ‘Art has become nothing but commerce,’ as if it were ever otherwise. What’s strange about this frequently repeated observation is how it has been literally adopted by other circles, including directors, critics, journalists, and even the general public. Even Morsi Kharrat, the poor mechanic, now believes this, as if art were once a divine message and its messengers were obliged to offer their finest efforts to guide the universe. The reality, however, is entirely different. Art has always been, and remains, an economic activity that cannot survive without market mechanisms like supply and demand.
Some may view art as a product with a unique nature, and they are indeed correct. However, this uniqueness does not contradict the fact that it is a commodity bought and sold, subject to the general principles and axioms of economics. It is also economically established that the wealthier a society becomes, the greater the demand for artistic works, allowing artists to strive further in their creativity and select what aligns with their inclinations and directions. A historical anecdote about the commercial nature of art is that the Pope himself went to Michelangelo, pleading with him to complete his famous work, the Sistine Chapel, as there was immense demand for his creations, making him one of the most expensive artists of his time.
Contrary to the popular belief that economic incentives and returns corrupt art, many researchers oppose this view. They have found that the icons of global art, whose names are etched in history, were often driven by a love for profit, with some making it their sole goal. In reading the correspondence of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and others, it becomes clear that they were all obsessed with accumulating wealth. Mozart once wrote in a personal letter: ‘Believe me, my sole aim in this life is to make as much money as possible.’ This did not in any way contradict the quality and refinement of the artistic output of such historical figures.
Thus, the influence of commerce on art is largely positive, encouraging diversity and economically supporting creativity. On the contrary, protecting art from commercial influences has only brought stagnation. For instance, consider the French film industry after the Second World War. The government introduced a protectionist programme accompanied by substantial financial support for this artistic sector. The result was nothing but delay and decline in global competitiveness, despite French films being highly sought-after commodities before such protection was implemented. Meanwhile, the US government, in all its grandeur, spends no more than $170 million annually on all forms of art—a sum that might not even cover the budget of a single Hollywood production.
In short, art is a natural economic activity with a unique nature—that is the truth. Despite the high regard for the arts in our collective consciousness, their survival is entirely and partially linked to the increase in societal wealth and their commercialisation, as analyses have proven. All of this is for the benefit of the artist and those who enjoy their work—in other words, the producer and the consumer. Therefore, we must stop mindlessly repeating that baseless phrase and acknowledge that art is an economic activity that does not lack a message. Protection or support only leads to delays in meeting societal demand for art that suits its taste.
Some might argue that the Egyptian government’s support for cinema in the 1960s brought us those masterpieces of creativity, often referred to as the golden age of Egyptian cinema. However, it only produced a generation of artists and creators who were unable to deliver meaningful and profitable works when the state could no longer afford to spend, leaving the market empty for high-profit, low-quality films like those of ‘al-Limby’, which destroyed public taste while genuine artists struggled to reach society. Not to mention the artistic tragedies produced by state-supported art, which portrayed the revolution, for example, as the salvation of the Egyptian soul and the monarchy as nothing but a gang of bloodsuckers. Yet, poor Morsi Kharrat, the mechanic, still repeats the same misleading phrase, ignoring all these facts.
This article is originally published by AlBorsa in Arabic and later AI-translated by South Push.