Artistic integrity
Artistic integrity is generally defined as the ability to omit an acceptable level of opposing, disrupting, and corrupting values that would otherwise alter an artist's or entities’ original vision in a manner that violates their own preconceived aesthetic standards and personal values.[1][2] It is someone's (the one who has artistic integrity) high artistic standards or standards of doing their job, and that person's determination not to lower those standards.[3] This does not necessitate that an artist needs to ignore external influences in the creation process. It is often academically studied under the greater umbrella of personal integrity, but recent papers have shown the need for its own standards and studies given the wide usage of the concept in critique of contemporary art alongside the continued governmental investment.[4][5][6] The definition itself can take on many forms and has been argued about academically due to the nuanced nature of Artistic Integrity's overlap with non-artistic forms of integrity and the differing values in philosophical frameworks both by artists and the larger community. Despite the widespread use of the concept in mass media and the creative industry; artistic integrity has often been philosophically ignored in comparison to personal and mechanical integrity. An important factor to consider in discussion of artistic integrity is context in terms of not only the historical zeitgeist but more prominently the community and artists’ respective cultural and personal understanding of the term. If an individual is said to possess artistic integrity it does not equate to that person also possessing personal integrity; correspondingly, the absence of personal integrity does not equate to the absence of artistic integrity.
This article is about the philosophical concept. For other uses, see integrity (disambiguation).Artist perception[edit]
The complex history and lack of variety in study of artistic integrity is reflected by the multifurcation of artist perception on artistic integrity. From interviews conducted under academia common features emerged that involved the importance of artistic integrity to creators and the presence of an internal framework in which they defined it; contextually, to their perception of what they expected of themselves and what the public perception was within their personal ideology. Interpretations and general definitions of artistic integrity however differed radically from artist to artist and sometimes were considered contradictory. These findings brought into question the validity of the modern usage of the term itself; arguing for more representation of artists to define the legitimacy and connotations of their own integrity.
Politics[edit]
Many first world countries have identified the importance of art involvement in the wellbeing of its economy and communities; prompting public funding of art initiatives and policies. These include investment into higher arts education in hopes to boost financial viability of the arts industry while maintaining the ‘culturally specific’ nature of the artforms. Some examples of countries that employ taxpayer investment into these creative industries are Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and Finland[13]
Controversies[edit]
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[edit]
The 1884 novel has been subject of controversy due to its mention of the N-word 219 times and being written by a Caucasian man.[14] The primary discourse revolves around its use in the American education system where one side argues that it should be taught using a censored version or not at all while the other side thinks that censoring the work leads to the loss of its artistic integrity as some literary interpretations show the use of the word was not to promote racism but rather to discredit it.[15] The edited versions of the novel that use the word slave instead are seen to have lost artistic integrity of the original text; however, some teachers and students feel burdened by saying such a derogatory word.[16][17]
Jane Austen[edit]
In an 1816 letter by James Stanier Clarke; the librarian at His Royal Highness's Coburg House, it was suggested that Jane writes a historical romance set in that house as it would have been politically advantageous to the Prince and profitable to Jane herself.[18] Her memoir later revealed that she rejected his suggestion as she acknowledged it would be popular and profitable but that it would clash with her style to the point that she would theoretically hang herself before writing a chapter of the suggested book.