Now that's what I call Artistic Integrity...Speaking the truth from within your heart no matter how controversial or what people will think...very refreshing!

All the Best...
Billy

It's the peers who gets to call art, art, and not really "the market" (who ever that is). We see this in these forums every day, and the screeners from Taxi makes the music legitimate when they forward it. The sceeners are extemely knowledable peers, and they may not be evaluating the artistic value of the music in any universal sense, but surely they do consider some criteria both musical and for use.

Each genre of music implies a theory of aesthetics, also embodied in the screeners. Aesthetics is basically about judgements derived from taste, and when we consider genres, they might work sort of as templates of taste (because genres are preferred formats from particular segments of listeners/consumers). Basically many of us aspire to be in the business of imitation (of art), like when we are asked for a piece "a la" something. But as there are no perfect imitations, and we also have to make our work unique in order to be recognizeable, and together with the imitation of the requested genre, that small difference seems to be the inclusive criteria into the club of "art", depending on if it's judged as "aesthetic" or not

Integrity is more about the personal, so "artistic integrity" seems to be about the difficult marriage between the personal and the stuff that can be accepted as art with a peer group. So being true to your own emotions when writing, and doing that with respect for your audience, might just suggest that you should only submit music you have something invested in (true to your emotions, authentic), and fits the listing (responsible to the "audience").

That probably pretty much includes everyone submitting relevant and competitive material for Taxi listings into the club of artists with "artistic integrity", I'd say, so I think I agree with Matto that the idea of artistic integrity in the article about Craig Bickhardt is too narrow. Artistic integrity cannot just be about personal criteria, it has to be recognized as art in some way by peers, so it's more about how personal values integrates into art.

Now, the rock'n rollers are probably smashing their guitars into their walls, sparypainting their bulldogs, tossing their hair, shouting, but why the f... are we talking about this then!!!

Well put, but to my way of thinking, not quite right. An artist is a person who organizes a set of perceptions, generally through the use of media; whether art is an artist's job depends on other factors. There is a vetting process for music, but it's been disrupted and perhaps distorted by a great democratization of access to the tools; what Marx called the 'means of production' and the distribution channels once owned by the major media. Yes, there's a glut of music being marketed, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Lady Gaga has any more or less artistic value than say, Rufus Wainwright.

The worlds top painter made over thirty million dollars last year; he doesn't do interiors, and he doesn't work with Sherwin-Williams. He, in fact, sub-contracts much of his work in the same way that Hans Zimmer does. Does he have artistic integrity? I dunno, you'd have to ask him.

Mojo: I'll give you an interesting percception. Something like 20 years ago, I bought myself a pair of boxer briefs, with some reallly gorgeous chinese artwork on them. A few weeks later, I was in a very high end mall, and wandered into an exhibit hall of a chinese artist. Damned if his paintings/prints weren't the same as on my boxers. I still recall a salesperson coming up to me and saying, "So you appreciate Mr. so & so's art?" I said, " Actually I've come some boxers with his "art" printed on them. Bought them at the department store downtown". I could see the "integrity" of this artist evaporate from the salesperson's face. I guess product placement is all. Ott