Hi Ryan, On Mar 22, 2013, at 5:37 PM, Ryan Tanaka <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I completely agree. :-) > 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. I'm with you. The career path is far broader than it used to be, but there's a lot more potholes. > But I am kind of a snob, so that might be something to keep in mind. :) And I'm something of a Philistine. :-) > 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". I agree that's where the conversation *was*. In the early days of disruption, the choice is between "do-it-yourself" and "get sucked into the machine." But as the market matures, the real contrast is between what I hear called "thin intermediaries" (enablers) and "thick intermediaries" (gatekeepers). There was a great article about that this weekend, in regards to book publishing: http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/23/the-business-of-literature-is-blowing-shit-up > It’d suck up a huge amount of time I would prefer to spend doing what I enjoy > (writing) and force me to do stuff I do not enjoy (reading contracts, > accounting, managing other people). The only sane way to do it would be to > hire someone else to do all the boring crap on my behalf. And do you know > what we call people who do that? We call them publishers. > > Indeed. But wait: why do all of those people have to work under the same > corporate aegis? Why can’t Stross hire a separate editor, copy editor, > publisher and marketer? Why must their end-product be viewed as a thing that > is complete and engraved in stone, rather than a living beast amenable to A/B > testing and weeks-to-months of optimization, like a Broadway play in > previews? If a book isn’t a sheaf of papers any more–and given that the > bestselling e-books are now outselling the sheaves, it clearly isn’t–then > what is it? > > 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. You're right, pure disintermediation only works for a small number of people, the pioneers and trailblazers who have (or can learn) all the necessary skills, or whose art is enhanced by being forced to work with those constraints. And yes, some people get lost in the transition (though frankly, most of those would never even have gotten started under the old model!). > 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. Mmm, I half-agree with you. I'm with that all art is an expression of both an individual and their context. But I have a hard time seeing "art" as rare -- unless you're using a very snobbish definition. :-) Specifically, I see "culture advancing" all the time -- in the same sense that I see a river advancing. Sometimes looping back, sometimes destroying everything in its path, but still seeking to explore the space around it. Sure, I agree that much of what passes for art today is nihilistic and counter-productive, but from the broader platform perspective even that is an essential part of the filtering. Seth's Blog: Most people, most of the time (the perfect crowd fallacy) > 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. I completely agree with you. I actually think most industries have already gone past that false dichotomy. Movie and TV production are still considered viable businesses, though, so the resistance and rhetoric are still pretty heated. Fortunately, most of the serious thinkers I know are busy working on actually *building* the new ecosystem, rather than just talking about it. I don't know what it will look like (or which one's will succeed), but the future of art has never been brighter (and darker -- life only works with contrast :-). 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.
