They mix like oil and water. Sure good things come out of the relationship, but usually in spite of it. I was reading something that claimed that at the time "Star Wars" came out the mainstream press believed the special effects were what made it so popular. Of course, many would also point to the mythic qualities of "Star Wars" or even John Williams' score. The truth is, "Star Wars" would not be so popular if any of these ingredients were missing. The story was classic myth which has entertained humans since prehistory, but the special effects made it real and new, and the music amplified its themes. But the pundits say its the special effects that made it. It sounds like the kind of analysis a studio mogul wants to hear: that his large budget devoted to special effects produced tangible profit; that money in predictably gets money out. So after "Star Wars" we basically have an age of special effects and big budgets. Start with "Superman" and follow the stream to "Troy". When capitalists find something that gives money, they squeeze every last cent out of it. Again and again we see that when a piece of creative art is found to generate money, the big guys assume it was successful because its components were money-makers and so we get copycat art that uses some combination of those components. How many "Alien"-wannabes do we have? What about "Lethal Weapon"-style buddy-cop movies (assuming LW was even the first one)? "Matrix"-clones? Now how many of the copycat movies are actually good? On the flip-side, how hard is it for someone with an untested idea, a truly creative vision, to convince the capitalists to support it? We need look no further than "Star Wars" itself. Lucas took his idea to at least two studios before a producer at Fox agreed to fund it. And he agreed to produce the film not on its own merits (he didn't "understand it"), but because Lucas' previous "American Graffiti" was a money-maker! So he saw the director-component as being the money-making magic that could be counted on to produce more in the future. Indeed, that is how directors like Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, and even Woody Allen have gotten free of having to beg - they are consistent money-makers.
Look at how much Hollywood trash we have to wade through to get the good stuff. Or pop music. Heck, look at television! Its a disaster, a wasteland.
So the real question, is art better off in a capitalist corporate system? Sure there is a lot more of it, but how much more good art? On one hand you have an artist who can make a living, but on the other hand you have the pressures of the market.
Want to comment? You'll need to create an account first.
Now, if what you really mean is that profiteering is bad, perhaphs that is not quite the same things as your hypothesis. This of course is a problem especially in a cpaitalist system, especially our current system of corporate-style capitalism, so you may have an argument there. I am not really sure what you would propose as an alternative though, given the limitations of the alternatives.
(Ok, as usual, socialist doesn't really sound so bad, but just remember the government gets to choose the art. You could try to replace the naive-capitalist view of "voting with the dollar" in that case by having people ACTUALLY vote; in democratic socialism, the people COULD pick the artists and projects. This seems roughly equivalent, and probably a little superior, to the entrepreneurial way. Though, since the decisions are still being made collectively, I suspect the system will show the same pattern of degeneration the same way most democratic processes do. We will all end up with the lowest common denominator. One only need look at American politics to see that process in action.)