I saw a piece on TV the other day where they were talking about Usher. Apparently he has said in an interview that he wants to be "the richest man in the world".

The commentator had a problem with this, stating that it is unfitting for an artist to be so focused on money.

Now, I could give a rat's ass about Usher, but what is wrong with an "artist" stating that they want to make a shitload of cash? Better they should lie about it?

(And before this thread is moved to the Music forum, this is not a thread about Usher or music, it is a thread about art and money).

That would be why I don't like Usher!! You can be confident without being cocky! Usher doesn't know how!

My impression of true artists is that they can't help themselves in their creating; it's about the work itself, rather than the audience and what they "get" out if it. They're tremendously driven, and they'd need to do what they're doing whether they make a profit or not.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to make money and earn a living (many artists are poor and have been "sponsored" by rich people who like their art, and controlled to a certain extent by the sponsor's whims, so it's nice when artists have freedom). But to make that the end-all, be-all of the experience doesn't strike me as "art". It's pure commercialism.

AnotherLoverToo said:

As far as I understand it, he never stated that this was the "end-all, be-all" for him. The commentator had a problem with him stating that he wanted to make a lot of money from his music.

On this topic, I always liked this quote from Bruce Springsteen:

"The best thing I did was I got into therapy. That was really valuable. I crashed into myself and saw a lot of myself as I really was. And I questioned all my motivations. Why am I writing what I'm writing? Why am I saying what I'm saying? Do I mean it? Am I bullshitting? Am I just trying to be the most popular guy in town? Do I need to be liked that much? I questioned everything I'd ever done, and it was good. You should do that. And then you realize there is no single motivation to anything. You're doing it for all of those reasons."

Personally, I'm of the belief that artists create to be loved, not for some burning need to share their wisdom/feelings with the world.

Ace said:

Wanting to be "the richest man in the world" is different than wanting "to make a lot of money", though, and if that's the first thing that pops out of a so-called artist's mouth, I, too, would question his motivation. Of course, we're all complex individuals with lots of needs that drive our actions, our art doesn't have to come from ONE part of us. But if money is God, then creativity falls to the wayside, IMO.

Ace said:

I believe those things are interconnected. It's about, "see, this is who I am and what I really feel, what's been bottled up inside of me that I need to get out. If I can show you this and you still love me, then I'm saved".

AnotherLoverToo said:

I don't think this was the first thing that popped outta the dude's mouth. ...Oh and "Poor man wanna be rich/Rich man wanna be King/And a king ain't satisfied 'til he rules everything"

AnotherLoverToo said:

You don't think it's about "Gee, if I become famous, I'll get laid more"? If it were about "see, this is who I am...", you can do that privately - you don't need to do it in front of the whole world.

Ace said:

I'm sure the awareness of benefits--getting laid, being famous--are in there somewhere, but not til later. I don't think that's behind the original motivation to create music or art. I believe that process often starts in an artist's teens, and it's about teen existential angst--winning/losing the girl, parents not being fair, partying with your friends, etc. Self-expression and the desire to be loved universally all play into this. Many artists DO this privately--people write poetry, paint, etc. and never become famous because they don't have the talent or the connections. But they still do it to express themselves because they feel they HAVE to.

To me, that's a real artist.

What's so wrong with wanting to be the richest man in the world?

I don't know... I don't know a whole lot about Usher, other than the songs of his that I listen to, but I like that he was honest about it. What's wrong with that? What would have been the proper or correct thing to say?

I just came across this in an interview with U2's drummer and I admire his honesty:

n.b. prince's interviews with the press about his fight for 'artistic freedom'. the quotes attributed to prince seemed to be a lot more along the lines of 'who gets the money'.

$10 per cd if he publishes his own, etc.

nowt wrong with that, but at least be straight up and admit that the moola is a large part of it; it ain't all about "his babies".

testicleman said:

I don't think he's ever denied that he's very concerned with the Benjamins. I recall a quote in the last Rolling Stone cover story where (in response to a question about why he was playing so many shows per week on the Musicology tour) he said it came down to a choice between "sleep and a half-million dollars".

I'm guessing you watched People In The News. The lady never said there was a problem with it, she just said the public might get sick of it, which they are. Usher always seems to be ONLY concerned with becoming successful. I never hear him talk about what he wants to do musically.

variety1317 said:

I was watching a Canadian show (MuchMusic?). Don't get me wrong: Usher's a wanker. I just don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to make a lot of money from music.