In a recent interview for the aptly-named Interview Magazine, Urchin-adored sea star Natalie Portman weighs in on the eekonomy and its effect on art (or is it the other way around?).
Natalie says:
I think it’s kind of an exciting time. I mean, everyone is cutting back. It’s happening in every industry – including [film]. But I think that’s going to translate into a situation where people aren’t motivated by money as much as they have been in the recent past. A lot of my friends from college went into fields like banking for financial reasons – obviously people have school loans and things to pay off. And now, all of a sudden, they’re doing jobs that they hate and they’re not making as much money as they thought they would or they’ve lost their jobs entirely. So I’ve started to see people looking more toward their own passions and what really excites them. Obviously it’s much easier to say that you’re going to follow your passions when you’re financially secure, but at least we can take solace in the fact that we now have the time to pursue the things that we really want to pursue because now the option of doing things just for the money isn’t necessarily there.
What a perfect opportunity to start a dialogue! Feel free to join us!
The Urchins say:
Geo - While the option of doing things just for the money seems absent in some, could it be enhanced in others? And if the eekonomy improves, will the option return to form as well? There will always be people driven by money. Just because the option isn’t necessarily there at the moment, it is still lusted after. Just because people aren’t raking in cash doesn’t mean they don’t want to. To me, not doing things for the money because the option isn’t there isn’t the right reason not to do things just for the money.
Sarah - Having been unemployed in the recent past, I can attest that it is indeed a great time to focus on artistic endeavors (oh hi, Urchin Movement). But if people cannot remain motivated enough to pursue their art whilst holding a job, what can be said of them as artists? And if one must work to sustain, is it completely necessary to enter soul-sucking, money-driven fields like banking? Yes, school loans must be repaid- but at what price? Would it not be better to span loan repayment over a longer period in order to hold a job that is either personally fulfilling or beneficial to society/the world/the arts? I do agree, however, that I am excited to see if a shift occurs from big budget films targeted at the masses to less expensive, more artistic cinematic explorations. And I hope that if people are able to reconnect with their arts due to a deficit of non-artistic employment opportunities, such passions can be sustained when the eekonomy improves.
Margaret - It’s also interesting to note that a time of economic hardship begets the best art. When people are content, they aren’t as motivated or driven to be creative. Satisfaction and complacency don’t invoke ingenuity. Look at the writers to come out of the Great Depression. Faulkner. Hemingway. Fitzgerald. So, perhaps it’s not only that people now have the time to pursue their passions, but they have, in fact, discovered their passions. It may seem blasphemous to say this now, but perhaps the current recession is exactly what we need as artists and as a society.
Leave us your two cents (we’re always strapped for coin) in the comments section!
Further Reading (you know you want to!)
Interview Magazine – the rest of the Natalie interview (or at least the excerpt available online), conducted by Brothers co-seastar Jake Gyllenhaal.
Even Further Reading (you’re insatiable!)
The Urchin Manifesto – a semi-focused stance on art and money.
