- The notion of the artist as a solitary genius—so potent a cultural force, so determinative, still, of the way we think of creativity in general—is decades out of date. So out of date, in fact, that the model that replaced it is itself already out of date. A new paradigm is emerging, and has been since about the turn of the millennium, one that’s in the process of reshaping what artists are: how they work, train, trade, collaborate, think of themselves and are thought of—even what art is—just as the solitary-genius model did two centuries ago. The new paradigm may finally destroy the very notion of “art” as such—that sacred spiritual substance—which the older one created.
I'm unconvinced. I enjoyed Direciewicz's two previous articles for The Atlantic but this one is an endless string of platitudes with no real point or content. More than that, he ignores the shift from the benefactor model to the capitalism model as empires gave way to republics and the two-class system gave way to the three. Art wasn't institutionalized because of WWII, art was institutionalized because there weren't enough billionaires around to keep artists and creators in oil and canvas. The busker gave way to the major label artist because business interests were able to monetize busking. Major label artists are becoming buskers again because the business interests have been "disintermediated" (my favorite euphemism for "wiped out"). So goes the music industry, so goes the movie industry, so goes the art industry... or at least the "print art" industry, as the "art art" industry managed to get swept up in the delirious tulip bubble of modern art and billionaires. Remarkably little content is given over to the "entrepreneur" side of things, other than to say "artists now have to sell." I think it's disingenuous to argue they didn't before. The difference now is they're making a million tiny sales instead of a thousand big ones. Again, they're busking. Which is what you do when you don't have a benefactor. It's all a hustle, the only difference is who you're hustling to. Hey, I give $7 a month to Patreon. I get it. But you can say "you aren't selling to EMI any more" in far fewer words than the article employs. Kind of the problem in a nutshell.
I agree, artists have always been 'hustling' throughout the ages. Minstrels, Troubadours, Broadside Ballads... The difference then was that music was seen as activity for all to participate in. It was a folk art. It wasn't really until the birth and development of Music Hall that music started to become popularised as a commodity, a form of common entertainment. Before then, the working classes were making all their own music rather than just consuming it. Obviously, that's from a rather UK focussed perspective. However, I think the author has a point in regards to the left of over sentiment of Romanticism. The misguided (including myself until recently), who see themselves as the 'solitary genius', get left behind in a world where the means to create and sell are open to the masses. Do you think this presents a harder or easier dynamic for those trying to make moeny from their art? Or does it make little difference in the grand scheme of things?The difference now is they're making a million tiny sales instead of a thousand big ones
The "solitary genius" thing has always been a trap for the never-successful, I think. There are very few art forms that don't benefit from some form of external influence; everyone has a muse. Even if you're putting oil on canvas you'll be more successful if you paint what others want to see. As Frank Zappa said, "art is the knack of making something out of nothing and selling it." Artistes know that "selling it" is "selling out." Artisans know that "selling it" keeps you safe from TPS reports. I really don't think this is anything new. I mixed bands in clubs before the invention of the MP3. There was one reggae cover band that did nothing but frat nights and big joint cover clubs. They did party soca for tasteless rubes. And the bassist had an Entsturzende Neubauten tattoo and me and the keyboardist used to swap stories about Laibach and Skinny Puppy. Not that you couldn't make a living in an industrial band; I mixed Frontline Assembly several times. But you make a much better living playing music for the masses than you do playing music for rivetheads. Even Frontline Assembly figured that out. That's where Delirium came from. My experience is that it depends. I used to try and sell screenplays. Screenplays are a bitch because you're essentially convincing someone to spend a hundred million dollars on your idea. I figured novels would be easier because you aren't. Theoretically, you're convincing ten million people to spend ten dollars on your idea. It isn't a yes/no proposition and since your sunk costs are substantially less than a hundred million dollars, it's easier to succeed. Thing is, if you want the big sales, you're still trying to convince one person (an agent) to invest in your idea. The stakes are lower but it's still single point. Yeah, you can hustle your shit on Amazon. But aside from a few bright and shiny points, the money is still in traditional publishing. Will that change? Sure. And when it does, all the money will be gone from publishing, too. And then we'll be left with cat videos on Youtube, Garageband experiments on Soundcloud and the comments sections of both for our entertainment. Brave new world...Do you think this presents a harder or easier dynamic for those trying to make moeny from their art? Or does it make little difference in the grand scheme of things?
I'm an artist as some of you may remember after I pounced on one of your esteemed users for being kind of a douche. I agree that this is the direction art is heading, the article paints a pretty rosy picture of unfettered creativity nurtured by the market while I just see a degree of Idiocracy/Ow, My Balls Season 8. Art, visual art, is so wild and eclectic because there are gatekeepers paying for what are useless things which is both amazing and insufferable. The average person is so alienated by their perception of it that it's essentially dead no matter what awesome creative feats are created every day. I'm conflicted. I'm not anti capitalism, I've done a bunch of hack work for money with a flimsy justification of merit in my mind. I just don't trust the masses to fund great works of art through the market. Film and TV are arts and they do create great work but, especially with film, it's in spite of the market not because of it. I heard an economist forecasting the post Recession world on Morning Edition and he saw greater income inequality, lower wages but a greater creative output by society due to the internet. Basically you're going to be poor as fuck but you can dick off with paint or videos and post it online. I agree with him and most of this article even if the article seems overly optimistic to me.