The Death of Culture (oh noes!)

[Mysterious Dude]

Some months, there was this guy on the Colbert Report who believed that the internet was causing the death of culture. I listened intently, because I'm very interested whenever somebody proclaims the imminent death of something important. His thesis, as far as I recall, was that people were not paying for the music and videos they used on the internet, and therefore the artists weren't making as much money as they should be. Or something like that. In any case, I didn't have much trouble dismissing his hypothesis, or what little of it I could grasp.

But recently, I read a book by Scott McCloud called Reinventing Comics. McCloud predicted that the internet would be the future of comics distribution. His analysis of the internet itself was interesting to me. He pointed out that before the internet (and other modern technologies), you had fewer choices in entertainment. When listening to the radio, for example, you cannot choose what songs you listen to. You might choose to listen to whatever is on, even if you don't like it. With only four television stations, also, you had limited options. Now, you have many, many options. This is good, isn't it?

In those days, if you were watching TV at 8:00 p.m., you were watching on of four things. Now, if you're watching TV at 8:00, you could be watching anything. It is possible you watched something that no one else you know watched. In those days, even if you didn't like a popular song, you would probably have listened to it anyway, and so you would have a shared experience with your peers. Today, for example, I don't know any of the most popular hip hop songs, nor can I name the most popular hip hop artists off the top of my head.

I am very interested in the art of other cultures. Last week, I watched a movie called Grbavica. It was made in Bosnia and I do not know how to pronounce the title. This movie was made available to me through the internet. I do not know anyone in the world that I can talk to about it.

Should I embrace my own culture so that I may save it?

[Yxklyx]

Some months, there was this guy on the Colbert Report who believed that the internet was causing the death of culture. I listened intently, because I'm very interested whenever somebody proclaims the imminent death of something important. His thesis, as far as I recall, was that people were not paying for the music and videos they used on the internet, and therefore the artists weren't making as much money as they should be. Or something like that. In any case, I didn't have much trouble dismissing his hypothesis, or what little of it I could grasp...

Why should artists make money in the first place?

It's only within recent history (with some exceptions), that artists can become rich. In fact one could argue the reverse - that once artists started becoming wealthy (and art became tied to money) that culture started dying?

[Sycophant]

Why should artists make money in the first place?

It's only within recent history (with some exceptions), that artists can become rich. In fact one could argue the reverse - that once artists started becoming wealthy (and art became tied to money) that culture started dying?
Artist in this sense has become synonymous with entertainment. Entertainment, most people would argue, is a vital service.

The death of culture is an interesting concept. But there will always be culture, even if it's in the subculture. As national barriers continue to break down, it seems to me that Bosnian films will find their niches in any number of countries. You may not "know" anyone you can talk to about it in real life, but you'll probably be able to discuss it with someone or get someone interested, even if just over the Internet. Perhaps culture isn't so much dying, but moving and reorganizing.

I do worry about the profit model, though. If we expect people to keep entertaining us, they need to be rewarded for it.

[lovejuice]

I do worry about the profit model, though. If we expect people to keep entertaining us, they need to be rewarded for it.

can't agree more with this statement.

[D_Davis]

Artists have no "right" to make money. This is a problem that has risen because industries have turned it into a commodity. Art is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

What we are seeing now is not the death of anything, but just a paradigm shift. As soon as the dust settles, artists will be better off, because hopefully this little culture war will destroy the unnecessary middle men and the internet will allow us to pay the artists directly, and pay them as much as we think their art is worth.

This will also lead to better art, because artists will be more apt to create stuff that more people think is worth more money. There will not be a set, arbitrary price for something.

[MadMan]

Artists have no "right" to make money. This is a problem that has risen because industries have turned it into a commodity. Art is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

What we are seeing now is not the death of anything, but just a paradigm shift. As soon as the dust settles, artists will be better off, because hopefully this little culture war will destroy the unnecessary middle men and the internet will allow us to pay the artists directly, and pay them as much as we think their art is worth.

This will also lead to better art, because artists will be more apt to create stuff that more people think is worth more money. There will not be a set, arbitrary price for something.So basically something like what Radiohead did when they sold their album online and let people pay whatever they want? Is that more in line with what your saying? Because all of this fascinates me greatly. I would love nothing more than to see the demise of say, the recording industry.

[D_Davis]

So basically something like what Radiohead did when they sold their album online and let people pay whatever they want? Is that more in line with what your saying? Because all of this fascinates me greatly. I would love nothing more than to see the demise of say, the recording industry.

Right. We are in the beginnings of this now. It's going to be a major change, too. Some artists who are "making it" now will not survive when this change occurs. However, if they truly love their art, they will continue to do it, they may just have to also have day jobs like a lot of us already do.

Radiohead's experiment proved interesting. The vast majority of people paid nothing, however, many people paid above and beyond the cost of a CD. I don't even like the band and I paid 20 bucks for it, just to support an artist who I think is leading the way into this new arena.

For the industry to say that a CD costs, or is "worth", $15-20 is insane. Music is art. Some art is "worth" more than other art, that is, certain people will pay more for some things, other people will pay more for other things, and some people will pay nothing for everything.

Let's say my favorite band came out with a new CD, a band I really loved, say The Boo Radleys. To me, a new Boo Radleys CD is worth more than $20. I would gladly pay to support a band that I love. However, would I pay as much to support a band I didn't love? No.

It is rather insulting to walk into a music store and see the new teen pop album on sale for as much as a Beatles or Dylan or Floyd CD. When looked at as art, this is saying that Hanna Montana's "art" is worth as much as Dylan's. However, we know this isn't true, but because the industry has made a commodity out of art, this is the way things now are.

Too man people have gotten too comfortable with making money off of other people's art. For decades, we needed these other people, these middle men, to act as distributors. We need them to deliver the music to the stores and to us. But along the way, a lot of people started getting really rich, people who were not necessarily making the art, and the artists often times only do modestly as well in comparison.

The only thing that is dying is the old way of doing things. But with the new way, the artists will be getting paid while those who don't create will not, at least not as much. This shift in thinking will put the artists on top and will put the rest of us in a position in which we can actually and directly support the art we enjoy without having to subsidize other artists.

Think of this. Radiohead wants to record a new album. They need some money. They tour and get some. But then, they also ask for donations to help with the finances. We can donate money to see that they get to record an album. In this way, we are creating a grant for the art we want to see made. Labels can then act like grant pools. Let's say their is a label you like and you like their bands. Well now you can donate money to the label and the label can then disperse the money to their bands. Art will become more of a collective process with us contributing to the process. We will no longer be simple consumers, we will be funding the arts directly.

[monolith94]

People pay millions and millions of dollars for a Picasso or Monet. Mostly, let us be frank, for the prestige. Would anyone pay for the prestige of owning a preserved reel of film? Perhaps one or two films.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm tired. Goodnight.

[Ezee E]

People pay millions and millions of dollars for a Picasso or Monet. Mostly, let us be frank, for the prestige. Would anyone pay for the prestige of owning a preserved reel of film? Perhaps one or two films.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm tired. Goodnight.
I think there are reels of films that already go for thousands. For the same reason as original paintings, they are incredibly rare.

But do continue.

[Mysterious Dude]

People pay millions and millions of dollars for a Picasso or Monet. Mostly, let us be frank, for the prestige. Would anyone pay for the prestige of owning a preserved reel of film? Perhaps one or two films.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm tired. Goodnight.
I have read a rather convincing argument that museums should use fakes. We use copies of music and film and think that's okay, so what's the difference if we do it for paintings? As it is, it's very difficult for the average person to enjoy a work of art because people feel they have to see the original if they see it at all.

[Wryan]

Right. We are in the beginnings of this now. It's going to be a major change, too. Some artists who are "making it" now will not survive when this change occurs. However, if they truly love their art, they will continue to do it, they may just have to also have day jobs like a lot of us already do.

Radiohead's experiment proved interesting. The vast majority of people paid nothing, however, many people paid above and beyond the cost of a CD. I don't even like the band and I paid 20 bucks for it, just to support an artist who I think is leading the way into this new arena.

So artists should be "penalized" [by taking an additional job] for doing something that was formerly their career? Many artists work extremely hard at what they do and would probably consider it impossible/suicidal to have to take an additional job to support themselves if they want to continue producing art. In your future, would artists spend as much time as they do now on doing all of those little/big things they do in the process of creating/delivering their art? If so, taking an additional job would be taxing beyond belief.

As for Radiohead (I just bought that album tonight btw, 15 bucks), how can we ensure that greedy or assholish people will not simply pay nothing for music in your future world like so very many did for Radiohead? Some will pay rationally to support the artist. A great many will take advantage of the situation. If ALL art was like that, it could kill art because no one would wish to spend a lot of time and money to create something that doesn't give them any profit in return. "Oh sure they would, if they really loved their art" you could argue, but much art takes money and vast time spent.

Good discussion.

[Wryan]

When I went to Mark Cohn's concert a week ago, he said, paraphrasing here:

"With the industry as it is today, and with how it's going, artists don't tour to promote their albums, but rather produce albums to promote their live tours, and that's how it should be, in my opinion."

His commentary got a very strong and positive reaction from the crowd.

[MadMan]

Artists make more money from tours than they do from albums, so I agree with that statement.

[Our Aurora]

When I went to Mark Cohn's concert a week ago, he said, paraphrasing here:


Was this right before Walkin' in Memphis? :)

I love music... but I am a student. Therefore, I cannot afford to buy every album I want to hear. Does that mean I shouldn't download music and only listen to those that I can afford? It's a struggle... I know that by me downloading albums, it slowly raises the price. But, there is nothing I can do about it at this juncture in my life.

Would a true "artist" rather money, or the biggest audience?

As a musician I see both sides of the argument, but as i said, I can't afford hard copies right now.

[Wryan]

Was this right before Walkin' in Memphis? :)

Heh. It was probably somewhere around there, but before "Walkin" he made a nice speech about how the song defined his career and how he's always gonna be a bit "stuck" playing it, but that he still loved the song.

[Our Aurora]

Heh. It was probably somewhere around there, but before "Walkin" he made a nice speech about how the song defined his career and how he's always gonna be a bit "stuck" playing it, but that he still loved the song.


All the power to him... I definitely wasn't knocking him or you. I respect any musician who is out there doing his or her thing.

But... I'm still broke.

Anyone want to give me some money?? :confused:

[Wryan]

I'm sans job atm, so err.... :(

[D_Davis]

So artists should be "penalized" [by taking an additional job] for doing something that was formerly their career?

No, I don't think so. I look at these things as positives, not as "punishment". Because money should never be the driving force of art and artists have no right to make money, which is what the industry had created. We have created a system now that says all art (music) is worth a certain price, be it 99 cents from iTunes, or $20 from Target. This is terribly insulting. When you put a value on something you are saying that all things with this value are comparable and this just isn't true.

Art is only worth what someone will pay. Music and films are art.

I am an artist. I write fiction, reviews and record music. I also work 40 hours a week. It's easy because it's who I am and what I love to do.

I have no right to make money off of my art just as I have no right to have a good job. I have to work hard at both and feel blessed to have what I do. At least any more right than my rights as a human being and what not.

In my scenario presented above, we will be directly funding the arts, and if you read it closely I think it makes a lot of sense. Yes, under my proposal many sub-par artists will fail and will have to get regular jobs, but the great artists will flourish because people like us will seek them out and will want to support them. We just won't have to do this by subsidization or buying into a morally bankrupt industry.

[lovejuice]

i want to contribute something intelligent in this thread along the line of "i think artists, especially writers, should be paid a shit load of money and have sex with different model every weekend," but i'm too lazy to read all the responds, and will keep my two cents just that.

[Wryan]

No, I don't think so. I look at these things as positives, not as "punishment". Because money should never be the driving force of art and artists have no right to make money, which is what the industry had created.

I am an artist. I write fiction, reviews and record music. I also work 40 hours a week. It's easy because it's who I am and what I love to do.

I have no right to make money off of my art just as I have no right to have a good job. I have to work hard at both and feel blessed to have what I do. At least any more right than my rights as a human being and what not.

K this explained your position a bit better. Although, I might suggest sliding the word "inherent" between "no" and "right" to make it clearer. As is, it read a little oddly to me. :)

I'm still not convinced that your system will work 100%. If we put it into effect tomorrow, it might take quite a while to get everything settled down.

Also, your system of funding the artists to create their work would only really work for established artists. I would have no interest whatsoever in blindly funding someone's work if I've never heard of them. This is where live performances would come in, but those would only affect local people . If they traveled to perform for many people in many cities, thus spreading their music and encouraging us to "fund" their work, it would be very costly and might even prohibit the possibility of having a regular day job (or simply make it [I]really hard to do both).

For your system, where does the internet come in?

[D_Davis]

Also, your system of funding the artists to create their work would only really work for established artists. I would have no interest whatsoever in blindly funding someone's work if I've never heard of them.

For your system, where does the internet come in?

You wouldn't be blindly funding them. Most bands, filmmakers and musicians can, especially with professional home recording gear costing next to nothing, record demos and full albums or make short films at home, and then use the internet to distribute them. Word of mouth spreads very quickly on line. If a song or short film is good, and one person hears/sees it, all it takes is a medium sized forum to start spreading the word.

The internet would take the role of the distributor, but it would cost less and be freely available to anyone with a computer.

With the system in place now, it is virtually impossible for an unsigned band to get their music into nation or world-wide brick and mortar distribution channels. And getting a fully indie film into a theatre is even harder still. It is incredibly expensive, and most chain stores won't carry unsigned, unsolicited albums or movies.

Yes, my system will take time to implement, but it really is the system that we are moving towards, or at least a facsimile there of. We will see a deconstruction of centralized, physical distribution, and we will start to see more artists selling directly to their fans using the internet.

My bands used to do small tours and we rarely got paid. Plus we all had day jobs. You see, if it is something you truly love to do, you will do it no matter what. Yes, eventually we had to call it quits because things weren't working out, but as each day passes I believe it is becoming easier for newer bands to make it without the need for the industry. When we were touring and promoting ourselves, Napster hadn't even been created yet, so it was a while ago.

Today with places like My Space, Facebook, Garageband, and other social networking websites, and with things like iTunes, eMusic and Bittorrent, art can be distributed widely and in a cost effective manner.

[Wryan]

You see, if it is something you truly love to do, you will do it no matter what.

I agree with your internet answer. This quote, though, kinda strikes me as something outta It's a Wonderful Life. "No matter what" is a generous way of putting it. There are plenty of things that can put a stop to an artist literally going forward with their ambitions. You yourself apparently encountered one or two of them. Really, really, really wanting it and loving it doesn't always mean it's gonna work out. I agree with you in principle, but I'm also pretty cynical, too.

It's gonna be interesting to see how things work out. It doesn't really cost much for someone to put a song online and let people download it, yes? Letting the people pay whatever they want for the song (in this case, we're talking music, straying a bit from generalities of topic but meh) would lead to some fascinating results. I wonder who's going to follow in Radiohead's shoes. Then again, they are pretty well established and could enact that experiment without too much risk to themselves.

[D_Davis]

There are plenty of things that can put a stop to an artist literally going forward with their ambitions. You yourself apparently encountered one or two of them.

Yes I did, but I never stopped. If anything, changing my focus helped me. I quit the band, quit playing live, and quit caring about "making it" and then just started recording and writing at home. A few years later, I'm sitting on 15 complete albums. My goal is to release a 20 CD box set at some point.

It will be interesting to see how things go, and I truly hope they get better. However, I am afraid they will probably get worst first.

It really is an exiting time to be an artist.

[megladon8]

I'm inclined to agree with D_Davis on this one.

If anything, the internet will cause an uprising of better art, in all fields (film, music, literature, painting, etc.).

It'll drain out the people just looking for a quick buck, and the people who are genuinely talented and passionate about their work will get more recognition.

[Wryan]

Yes I did, but I never stopped. If anything, changing my focus helped me. I quit the band, quit playing live, and quit caring about "making it" and then just started recording and writing at home. A few years later, I'm sitting on 15 complete albums. My goal is to release a 20 CD box set at some point.

It will be interesting to see how things go, and I truly hope they get better. However, I am afraid they will probably get worst first.

It really is an exiting time to be an artist.

Did you quit live because you didn't like it or because you couldn't keep doing it without the band? Do you see live performances as integral in this process or no?

Oh, and 15 cds is a lot.

[D_Davis]

Did you quit live because you didn't like it or because you couldn't keep doing it without the band? Do you see live performances as integral in this process or no?

Oh, and 15 cds is a lot.

I quit playing live because of a) the time commitment, b) I was tired of the band I was playing in, and c) I didn't see any benefit to it.

Once I decided not to try and make music my career, playing live just felt like more of a chore.

I think about sometimes though, and I wouldn't be opposed to playing a show now and then. I used to really like playing at art shows and art instillations. I used to be part of a collective of artists, and we did shows every month. I would perform at these. I was kind of their "Velvet Underground," if you will.

A big part of the reason is that I simply lack the ambition to try hard enough. I also like being comfortable, and having nice things, and a nice place to live. I guess you could say I just got burnt out on the lifestyle - I wasn't made for it, that's for sure.

[megladon8]

A big part of the reason is that I simply lack the ambition to try hard enough. I also like being comfortable, and having nice things, and a nice place to live. I guess you could say I just got burnt out on the lifestyle - I wasn't made for it, that's for sure.


Yes, it takes a certain type of person to be able to live like this and not break down.

People make jokes about musicians saying their lives are "stressful", and I definitely joke as well when it comes to some artists, but I don't think a lot of people realize how stressful and taxing (both physically and emotionally) a lifestyle like that is.

I'm glad you made the choice to live a quieter life and do your own music at your own pace.

[D_Davis]

I think that being a professional musician, in a band, is one of the hardest and most stressful jobs there is. The constant touring and being away from your home, friends and family, the late nights, always on the go...

That is just so not me. I'm too much of a homebody. I am definitely a creature of comfort.

[megladon8]

I think that being a professional musician, in a band, is one of the hardest and most stressful jobs there is. The constant touring and being away from your home, friends and family, the late nights, always on the go...

That is just so not me. I'm too much of a homebody. I am definitely a creature of comfort.

Oh, me too.

I think being a writer will be the perfect career from me. I can work from home, and at my own pace.