A Thought or Questions on Art v. Commerce

Is there a difference between asking an artists "what works" and asking them "what is art"?

Do we strive in the performing arts too often to make something that "works" -- though with the best of intentions. What is your purpose? we ask. What are you trying to say? What do you want the audience to feel? etc., etc., a series of supposedly helpful questions. And then we collaborate to make something "work"

But is that different than making something that is art? OR is art really defined by what works. As in, if you want the audience to cry, to see the injustice of homeless, or contemplate the confusion of the world, then you make art by making that "work," by effecting the audience in the way that you stated?

Does the visual arts concern themselves in the same way with the same audience considerations or is the fact that theater requires a ticket purchase -- does it change the nature of success?

Or have we just lost track of what we're doing. Cause I will go see something if it may be "art" regardless of whether it or not it works -- but I do that because I like the effect of confusion or contemplation or analysis on my mind. So many its just "working" differently on me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You can make whatever rational thoughts you want; fuck, anyone who knows me know that I can argue every side of every argument I need to argue. There's always a good argument.

So, in this case, and maybe too going forward, I'm just going to do with this feeling -- We're losing something when we measure success by effect on the audience. Too much concern with product. Not enough concern with intention. or experience. or something that is impossible to define that is labeled by the term art. . . I know the pendulum can swing too far in the other direction too and become insulting and tedious and worthless because no concern is paid for the audience. . . But, at this moment in our culture, we have lost the proper vocabulary for the real creation of art. . . I suspect.