Tour de Greed? Artistic Integrity and Audience

In the past couple of weeks around dinnertime, Chopin and I tried to regularly watch replays of the Tour de France, probably the most famous professional bicycling race in the world. Despite owning a mountain bike and biking myself, and despite having a cyclist dad who belongs to a cycling club and relishes his time on two wheels, I have to admit that I don't quite understand the rules and strategy of the Tour. Well, I guess I haven't really sat down and studied it all, so it's not really that surprising I don't get it. Nevertheless, I comprehend enough to enjoy the competition; the beautiful scenery of France depicted throughout is enough entertainment in itself. From my limited experience as a bicyclist, I sat in wonder at these amazing athletes' abilities; what they're doing is extremely difficult...probably more mentally straining than anything. I also think it's safe to say they're the best conditioned athletes in the world, from a cardiovascular standpoint, anyway. To be at their level of strength, will, and commitment would be incredible!


Well, my admiration for these cyclists is sadly waning. With the coverage of the Tour comes the controversies of its players: numerous stories about riders "doping," or using illegal substances to enhance their athletic prowess, are in abundance, particularly ones focusing on Lance Armstrong, 7-time Tour winner, cancer survivor, and American "hero" (http://www.sbnation.com/2010/7/27/1590204/lance-armstrong-ped-doping-federal-prosecutors-probe, http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5387363) He is currently being investigated by the feds, who are trying to figure out if he cheated by using performance enhancing drugs when winning the coveted yellow jersey. Sigh. I am not going to get into all of the details, but from what I've read and seen, and even though the media cannot ultimately be trusted, Lance's legacy seems tainted to me. I REALLY hope I'm wrong; I really hope the accuser (Floyd Landis) just has some jealous vendetta against his former teammate; I really hope that Lance did not use drugs when he displayed such athletic power, and I really hope that all of these amazing cyclists are in fact clean, but something tells me Lance and some others are guilty (multiple riders have already confessed). The feds probably won't uncover enough evidence to prove Lance's guilt, but with all of the hoopla, I think the damage is done, and the sport is somewhat scarred.

But Lance is the most drug tested cyclist out there, right? And he's tested clean every single time, right? So there's no way he's doping, you say. Well, that's where things get interesting. Apparently, the theory is that international cycling officials believe Lance is so important to the sport, has brought so much attention to it in a positive way, they're willing to look the other way (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/floyd-landis-nightline-interview/story?id=11226456). In other words, these officials, who are in charge of testing for performance enhancing drugs, let Lance slide--basically let him cheat--in order to popularize the sport. Lance's defense isn't helped by the shady fact that he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the UCI, cycling's governing body which overlooks testing, or that most of the cyclists who stood on the podium next to him have already admitted to doping.

So, how does this relate to reading, writing, literature, and the like? Well, what strikes me the most is the role the audience has played in this whole scenario. UCI has allegedly allowed Lance to cheat, maybe even encouraged him to, in order to greatly widen their audience, which essentially means those involved with the sport are greatly widening their pockets, as well. Unsurprisingly, money seems to be the motivating factor behind all of this. The more successful Lance is, the more famous he gets, which in turn garners more interest in the sport. With more interest comes more spending from cycling's audience (fan base), so there you go. Obviously, it's not a bad thing to develop and cater to your audience, or your customers, but at what price, and by what ethical standards?

As a writer, one must also be consider her audience, but to what degree? Creative writers constantly face the decision to cater to their audience--maybe write popular, more superficially inclined stuff--or write what they really want to, from the heart, whether it's popular or not. I'm sure some are lucky and don't have to choose between popularity/$$$ and artistic integrity; they are writing what they want to, and it just happens to be fluffier, or more popular in scope. Good for them. But what about the others? What about the writers who confront issues that are uncomfortable to deal with, are experimental, or are intellectually challenging? What about the writers who must decide between a paycheck (popular, more mainstream stuff) and staying true to themselves and their explorations? They must have audiences, too, they just haven't found them yet, or they are smaller, or they will exist after the writer has died. Some of the most respected artists' audiences have been created after they are long gone; what if all we are ever exposed to is the popular stuff? Yikes. No thank you. So, in a world where popularity reigns, to what degree should an artist/writer consider her audience? I guess I just want to emphasize that writers/artists have a choice; when it comes down to it, what would you do if money and choice of work don't really mesh (especially in a work that is so personal)? As for Lance and the sport of cycling, I hope I am wrong; I hope money, fame, and popularity haven't motivated their actions. I guess we can speculate about others, and only control the decisions we make in our own lives.

Shelley