I see where you're coming from, although I think our primary disagreement might be on what constitutes a "career" in the creative field. The freelancing career is an exciting one, but as with any startup enterprise, there comes a time to find out what works and scale into a real, repeatable business model, so to speak, and then focus on refinement. What's missing in the landscape right now is that bridge from the good to the great -- I don't doubt that there's a lot of good things out there, but my view is that I see the landscape being full of potential that has yet to be realized. But I am kind of a snob, so that might be something to keep in mind. :)
Most artists hate doing self-promotion, business dealings, raising money, and all of those extra-artistic activities. The typical response to this is: "well too bad, grow up and learn how to do it or get out". There is some truth in this harshness, although I've witnessed many people's artistic quality decline as a result of getting involved in all of those things, because they have no time left to hone in on their craft. So there is a lot of talent being lost in the process of forcing people to do things differently, which I think we need to be more honest about. Rather than looking at art as an act of individual self-expression, I'd like to propose the model that art is a result of a myriad of forces (political, cultural, economic) working together in order to achieve a specific result -- it's a point of view that's not very popular in this day and age, but my experience studying history has reinforced the idea that this is how culture really get advanced to the next level. It rarely ever happens in any given era, which is why it's so rare...but when it does, it becomes holistic because it captures the essence and spirit of the time and place in which it was made. I think we do, though, agree upon the idea that the world does need new curators. I'm no big fan of the old Hollywood, but I'm at least willing to admit that they've done a few things right in the past that's worthy of imitation. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, is basically all I'm asking people to do for now. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Dr. Ernest Prabhakar < [email protected]> wrote: > HI Ryan, > > On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Ryan Tanaka <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ernie, thanks for the thoughtful responses -- it's a complicated issue > but I'll try to be as clear as I can. > > > Thanks, it is great to try to get personal with the Hollywood - Valley > dialogue. :-) > > Talking to some industry vets, there was a period in time where Hollywood > really "invested" in their talent, so if an artist showed promise, they > would have have given them positions or residencies that's akin to a > salaried position in a company. Here a distinction needs to be made > between the mega-stars and the "average" artist, the latter of whom would > contribute their skills toward a bigger project (movies, music, > performances) under a larger umbrella, but still can carve out a decent > living for themselves if they were good and worked hard. Most of the > products we'd label as being "landmarks" (I dunno, Star Wars) comes from a > collective effort of many people working together, as with many things, > including software and video games. > > > With you so far. > > The internet, however, promises every young artist that they too, can be a > super-star. Not everyone can, of course, but the opportunity in itself is > often enough to get people to put up their work, often without looking for > anything in return. > > > Whoa, slow down. As I remember it, *Hollywood* invented the idea that > everyone could potentially be a super-star. You just had to be > good-looking and work in the right restaurant. :-) And jump on the right > casting couch. :-P > > But in reality, these companies have no real track record of building real > careers for artists, so its an economy that largely runs on people's sense > of vanity. > > > Wait, are you claiming that Hollywood does *not* largely run on ego and > vanity? > > :-) > > More seriously, I think we're talking about several different things that > are going on here. Note that all of these of happened a decade ago to > music, and five years ago to software development, so I don't think > Hollywood has any right to think they're special. > > a) Distribution costs have been enormously lowered, so it is easy for > anyone to publish their own work. > > b) Talent is still unevenly distribution. Yes, there are few superstars, > and the long tail mostly only makes money for the new middleman. However, > there's a new "middle class" of talent that is able to make a viable living > doing niche art that simply wasn't possible before. > > c) There is still a market for AAA content with high production values -- > but those now have to compete with both alternate forms of entertainment, > and piracy. > > Still with me so far? > > What ends up happening is that occasionally someone will generate enough > hits on YouTube or somewhere else -- only to be picked up by one of the > Hollywood studios when they decide to get more "serious". And the > knowledge and training you receive behind the spotlight is akin to what > "artist development" is -- contrary to its image, it's actually a very > tightly controlled process only made to look chaotic or rebellious. > > > Yes, that is *one* thing that happens -- but not the only thing. > > You can see this in a more mature form in book publishing, or even > blogging. Early on, the only viable "exit" was to get picked up by a > "real" publisher. But now, saying "indie" is a completely viable choice. > There's tons of one-man shops who earn decent to awesome livings writing > columns or producing comic strips. > > Even audio, which is more multi-person than writing but less so than > video, is already becoming disrupted by podcasts. > > Podcasts: Why the future sounds funny - Features - Comedy - The > Independent<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/features/podcasts-why-the-future-sounds-funny-2181973.html> > > Like everyone during the internet boom, I was enamored by the > possibilities of the new media landscape, but after attempting to do things > the DIY way I began to run into a lot of walls that forced me to change my > position on the issue. Off the top of my head, this is what a musician > needs, if they're serious about making a living in this manner: > > 1) Make good music, of course. > 2) Publicity/Marketing > 3) Booking (Gigs) > 4) Distribution > 5) Equipment, Audio Engineering > 6) Legal > 7) Financial > 8) Merchandise > 9) Management (If it's an ensemble) > > > Of course *some* people will choose to get bought out by the 'traditional' > route. But others will discover that they can rely on 'thin' > intermediaries to provide those services. Not just at lower cost -- but > without having to give up *control* over the end result: > > Louis C.K. Video Inspires New Business Model For > Comedians<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/louis-ck-video_n_1370516.html> > > Now even if you're a 1-man band, you'll still need all of this just to be > even barely noticeable. It's impossible for any one person to do this, so > eventually there's a need to find help in these areas...and ironically, > things end up going full circle because the people who have experiences in > these areas are still working in Hollywood, not in the Valley. Chances are > also good that you'll end up making less than before after everyone takes a > share of their cut, since they're not unified under a single company which > might have lowered some of the overhead. > > > Try telling that to Amanda Palmer: > > WHERE ALL THIS KICKSTARTER MONEY IS GOING, by amanda palmer The official > website of Amanda Palmer. Yes it is - Amanda > Palmer<http://amandapalmer.net/blog/where-all-this-kickstarter-money-is-going-by-amanda/> > > Yes, she's not typical. But typical musician (or actor) never makes *any* > money; even after a big record deal, after a while. Now more people have a > chance to succeed by building a relationship with fans, rather than being > reliant on the whims of record companies. > > Digital Music News - Musicians Are Better Off Than Ever Before In History. > And Here's > Proof...<http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/121009betteroff> > > The Valley imitating Hollywood won't be enough -- they'll have to build > the infrastructure from the ground up, maybe stealing some talent from the > other side, build their plan for how they want to be percieved by the > public for the long-term. It's possible, but I think a lot of techies tend > to underestimate how difficult this can be, since they tend to > underestimate the value of culture in general. Google I know had a few > Hollywood executives consult them on how to manage the content on YouTube > -- if Steve Jobs was alive he probably could've taken his Pixar projects to > the next level...but it's hard to tell if there's a successor in existence > who's as invested in the idea than he was. Still, giving content producers > a small slice of the pie was, I believe, a step in the right direction. If > they made the returns a little more substantial, I could see professionals > putting in a little more effort and time into their online projects. > > > Heck, I'll agree with you that those skills are more often in Hollywood > rather than the Valley. But even in Hollywood the smaller "thin" > intermediaries are finding different ways to wreak havoc with the existing > "supply chain" of talent, e.g.: > > > - Funny Or Die Pulling In Tens Of Millions In Revenue Thanks To > Freedom, Cheapness | > TechCrunch<http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/24/funny-or-die-revenue/> > - Funny or Die: Funny or Die expands comedic reach - Los Angeles > Times<http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/08/entertainment/la-ca-funnyordie-20110508> > > > " the revenues still may be nothing compared to > what traditional Hollywood gets, the key is that the overhead costs are a > fraction of the costs of what they are in Hollywood." > > The real battle isn't between the Valley and Hollywood; it is between the > old heavyweight business model and the new lighter one. Of course there > will still be a need for talent, capital, and mentorship. But those will > become disaggregated, and the playing field will be much more level. > > In regards to meritocracy, the main problem right now is that there is > combination of the economic devaluation of art (do it for free) combined > with a pervasive cultural relativism that makes it impossible for anyone to > gauge what "quality" is. Shows like American Idol is sort of silly but > it's kind of a peek into what an artist has to go through in order to hone > in on their craft -- the honest and sometimes harsh judgments made by > people knowledgeable in their fields. The fact that these shows have > become immensely popular is not a coincidence to me...it's what the people > want, and where the opportunities in the future lies. > > > I have to take issue with "the economic devaluation of art (do it for > free)." People have been doing art for free for thousands of years! The > last half-century where art was primarily something consumed from > professionals was an aberration, and IMHO not a very healthy one. > > If Hollywood can't compete with free, it needs to get into a different > business. Musicians, by and large, already have: > > The Technium: Better Than > Free<http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php> > > But that doesn't mean people won't pay. They still will, if they like the > content: > > The Billionaire Movie Club: The 15 Highest Grossing Films of All Time - > IGN<http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/06/the-billionaire-movie-club-the-15-highest-grossing-films-of-all-time> > > The question of quality is tricky. I am no fan of cultural relativism, but > neither am I keen to defend the "cultural elitism" that determined what > Hollywood did and didn't make. > > The reality is that now we have an explosion of content, and the old > gatekeepers are no longer in power. We need to choose new curators to help > us find what is worthy, which is already happening in various ways. > > In fact, the only real bottleneck *I* see is that there isn't a good > economic option for "medium" form video a la television. Short-form > content does fine on YouTube, and long-form movies are increasingly getting > funding from Kickstarter. > > Will The "Veronica Mars" Kickstarter Revolutionize Indie > Film<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/will-the-veronica-mars-kickstarter-revolutionize-indie-film> > > That trend will only increase as a) production costs go down, and b) > audiences (and actors) feel loyalty to a director rather than a production > company. > > Where things fall down is in the middle, where you need to fund a series > of television shows. Right now, only the TV networks have the capital and > skills to place a big bet and find the right audience. > > But I'll be shocked if that's the case in five years. > > Sorry for the rambling. Does that make any more sense? Or at least help > you identify the areas where we disagree? > > -- Ernie P. > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < > [email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- Ryan Tanaka Ph.D, Historical Musicology at USC http://ryangtanaka.com - Scholarship, music, entrepreneurship. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
