How do we feel about the artist as the brand?

[punkarsenic]

I've been thinking a lot about the 'artist as brand' / cult of personality strategy a lot lately, in researching art for school and in talking to other creators about succeeding.

for those that don't know, the idea is that to get people fully invested in your work, to get them to follow you from project to project, you need to get them invested in you as a creator / personality, and not just in the work itself. people watch movies for their favourite actor, favourite director - they read the next book by their favourite author, not just because they know they like how that person writes after one book, but something about their brand appeals. that can be the themes they explore, the way they explore them, but often becomes a certain affection for / interest in the creator themself - we start thinking about what the creator was thinking, under the characters and the art, and simulating this relationship with the creator that gets us coming back for more.

this celebritisation of the artist started up a lot after ww2, and something piero manzoni looked at a lot in works like artist's breath and artist's shit:

his response to the situation was really depressing, to be honest. he sold parts of his own body as commentary on the art markets obsession with having something really 'of' the artist, something personal. and i get what he was on about, as i try to strategize to 'brand' myself and sell what im doing as a whole, rather than project-by-project, it can get pretty uncomfortable. its one thing creating for self-expression, but a whole other to charge people for the pleasure.

so how do people feel about cultivating a cult of personality? dyou think its worth the awkwardness, the potential loss of privacy? are there ways to go about cultivating a 'brand' for yourself while side-stepping this discomfort?

[soapcahtoa]

I think it's unavoidable if you label yourself as an artist. The only way I can think of to sidestep a personal affiliation this is to refer to yourself as a company rather than an individual. Then instead of you, people would just see your logo.

[ChanYE]

very interesting question. i feel like most artists from what ive seen, only show their art and dont really take the time to let people get to know them. just the art. ive noticed this with alot of popular artists online. i think this is and isnt a great idea, mostly because you need to interact with your fans eventually and answer their questions. like the unavoidable "what kind of brush/software/PC/tablet do you use?"

and also, this kind of stuff has been happening to streamers for years. Glink does a great youtube video on this Link here.

[punkarsenic]

oh yeah, i bet streamers and youtubers have it the absolutely worst when it comes to uncomfortable interactions with having a personal brand. thanks for the video link!

[joannekwan]

Even if you don't interact with your audience, you're creating a brand with your work. As you put out more and more pieces, people will get a sense of what your work is about and will associate your artistic/writing style with you. A brand is an identity, so even if you don't speak yourself, your work speaks for you.

[punkarsenic]

A brand is an identity, so even if you don't speak yourself, your work speaks for you.

that makes a lot of sense. in that case, would you say the emphasis on creating a brand for yourself beyond / outside of the work itself is overrated? or is it still necessary / helpful in getting noticed and being successful?

[storytimebiondi]

I find a lot of Youtube celebrities and so on, not artists in particular, very disingenuous. They often put on this facade of being interesting, or being overly energetic or opinionated just to garner interest. In a sense, their identity, daily activities, and opinions become their brand.

I worry about this for artists. Some artists use their daily life this way to promote their art. I'm not opposed to the idea, but some definitely go down the road of putting on an "online face". There seems to lack some level of sincerity, I find. They try to look sincere, but often, to me anyway, they seem overbearing. Maybe i'm just an old cow. I don't know.

However, I do believe that sharing inspiration, interests, and some daily funnies is a great way to grow and interact with an audience. To some degree, the audience that draws the most from your art will be people who share similar experiences or interests with yourself. So long as you are sincere with your art and with your presence, I think it could be a very beneficial thing.

[joannekwan]

I suppose that really depends on your field of work and what you want to do with it.
When I was in my Graphic Design core classes, there was an emphasis to brand ourselves, since that would show a strong understanding of branding and identity which would lead to job opportunities in the field. And this would apply to an artist if they want to go beyond their own set of works, into merchandising and other creative ventures like games for example. With the example of youtubers, especially game-centric ones, they don't really have their own work to promote, so really they're promoting themselves.

I think at the very least, an artist should be mindful of what they're projecting and make sure any promotional material they want for themselves, like business cards and hand-outs, should be thoughtfully designed and share a theme.

[DiegoPalacios]

I think is important to be yourself. As humans we are evolving to identify "commercial" and fake people.

The credibility of a friend is stronger than the credibility of an ad. You need to build up a relationship with your audience but is also important to know where to draw the line when it comes to sharing personal information or your personal life.

[jpnakashima]

I believe there's a line between ''author appeal'' (watching a movie from a specific creator because you like what he brings to the table, you like the specific flavor) and an obsession with the image of the artist. I feel like both can be healthy when in control, but as with everything, balance is key.

I love me some author appeal. I believe art to be a really personal thing, so it's inevitable to me that author traits show through a collective body of work and that's awesome to me. Honesty is the best, art that you feel means something to the people that made them. I can understand Michael Bay interests seeing his body of work. Michael Bay never lies to you.

I do believe, though, that the line is more dangerous when it comes to, as mentioned, YouTubers and etc. Instagram celebrities, reality show people... because in their case, their art is themselves. I love me some Terrace House and I feel that the show, being so well edited, goes kind of deep in this difference between persona in a reality show and the person away from the cameras.

This is a complex subject and I'm rambling already and I don't know if it relates or not but have you folks heard about the Amelia Ulman instagram master piece? It's an interesting way of turning perception, expectation and public image into a really interesting art piece:

Amalia Ulman Is the First Great Instagram Artist

[lunaartemisasama]

Just to be clear, Pietro Manzoni was ironic. I mean he did this in order to criticize all this cult to the artist as walking brands.

I think it really depends of what kind of artists you want to be, do you want to show your works? do you want to share your point of view of the world? Or use diferent mediums to make people question theirselves or our society? All are valid.

Some artists just use pseudonyms to avoid all that, specially online.

[Shanny8]

I guess this seems to be one of the major "marketing" issues I have- do I brand my work or do I brand myself? I guess with me wanting to self publish printed comics I had to make a brand/identity for my comics, but I want to put myself out there as well- except that I'm not really a sociable person when I really get to the core of who I am, so I lean on the brand to tag along.

[Pandastrophic]

People will still be able to get a sense of your personality even if you don't share that much with them. I was suprised when I asked my followers on instagram what their impression of me (as an artist) was, I was expecting more art related replies which I did get but I also got a lot that talked about my personality, they were saying I was really nice bc I'm always posting art advice, replying to questions and doing features. I was suprised by this mainly bc I hardly share anything about my personal life with my followes, like most don't even know where I'm from, and I didn't even know they even had an impression of how I am as a person.

I don't think you have to go overboard with branding yourself, speak through your art and your actions in the community and people will pick up who you are from that.

[joe_galindez]

I'm with @joannekwan on this. I'd rather do the work and have it speak for me. I would hate to set up a cult of personality because that's basically making yourself a god for others to worship. Ew. I don't want to adopt a fake public personality. But I still want to be fairly accessible, not like other artists who don't even let people know what they look like.

From a business standpoint this approach shouldn't make much of a difference. You'll just be putting resources into marketing your products instead of your name. Probably be a bit more efficient, since the people who care about names would have already gone out of their way to remember yours.

[sarrowsmith10]

Ironically someone just put up a comic here on tapas that really illustrates this point:

Body for Rent | Tapas

The main character has spent her life building an online presence and creates this fake online persona that helps her get novel writing gigs. But then the publisher wants to meet her in person and she is afraid they will find out that her actually person is someone totally different than what she presented online!

In my own career I haven't thought too strongly about branding, but I'm a casual artist. I don't live off my work. However I like to be generally friendly and open about things, so I guess that helps bring in fans? (My life is not that interesting really)

Good comments though, I'm learning alot!

[joe_galindez]

Performers (that is, actors, dancers, musicians, and stand-up comedians) have no choice but to build their brands around themselves. They're so much closer to their work that in many ways they are the product. Every other artist should probably just focus on the work.

[panda3291]

I fall in between with a great many of these cult-like things.

I believe that you can get many people to like you as an artist and in turn create a great deal of success from just that, sure, but in a a world where there are thousands, potentially millions of artists, I think your work has a very large part to do with it, too.

I would never actually go out and use body parts as a method, however. Your own health should be of utmost importance. You can't create if you give away enough to disable yourself. Hahah!

[phen]

Aa, I never learned about Piero Manzoni at all, that is fascinating. There've been many artists through the centuries who use their body parts/bodily excretions as part of their work but not from the lens of identity as a commodity (at least not in a fame-oriented way).

So... the artist as a brand is certainly an undeniable function of the successful career. Famed, successful artists notoriously live chaotic, dramatic lives perhaps more often as an product of simply being an artist. We have a large proportion of celebrity artists in our own time (Banksy, Anish Kapoor, Kat Von D immediately come to mind) and mainly due to controversy. It's not really that the individual actively seeks "branding" as much as it is a creative ideology presented to and processed by communities worldwide.

There's no way to side-step the discomfort of losing privacy and I think it would ultimately come down to effective management. Divvying up personal affairs to give access to a body of work for the widest possible audience takes priority in many cases (particularly when pretty price tags are attached -- not that there's anything at all wrong with that).

[joe_galindez]

So you're saying that at a certain level of fame the personality cult just happens?

[phen]

While not exclusive to any particular level of fame, fame goes hand-in-hand with it, from my perspective at least. Fame = distinctive personality/ideology acknowledged by a large populous. Whether or not it's idolised (ie, admired/loved) is another topic all together.