The end of culture and art
-
Well, that might be a wee bit hyperbolic, but there is certainly something to be said about media and cultural fawning here.
-
It is absolutely the death of art and culture as we know it. Institutional art and culture, that is.
The gatekeepers—gallery owners to record labels to social media algorithms—are picking the wrong things and everyone knows it. People who care about art and culture aren't following who Facebook tell them to, they're following people like Jodi because she makes badass paintings. They're buying Mos Def's album directly, Louis CK's comedy specials directly, they're supporting randos on Patreon.
Everyone else with only a passing interest in these things haven't caught up yet, but they will.
-
It is absolutely the death of art and culture as we know it. Institutional art and culture, that is.
The gatekeepers—gallery owners to record labels to social media algorithms—are picking the wrong things and everyone knows it. People who care about art and culture aren't following who Facebook tell them to, they're following people like Jodi because she makes badass paintings. They're buying Mos Def's album directly, Louis CK's comedy specials directly, they're supporting randos on Patreon.
Everyone else with only a passing interest in these things haven't caught up yet, but they will.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
Everyone else with only a passing interest in these things haven't caught up yet, but they will.
Sooo, I repeat: Flash in the pan. Just a little longer one, maybe.
You could argue this pro or con better than I, but just for snicks I'll ask: Is there even such a thing as "institutional art"?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
Everyone else with only a passing interest in these things haven't caught up yet, but they will.
Sooo, I repeat: Flash in the pan. Just a little longer one, maybe.
You could argue this pro or con better than I, but just for snicks I'll ask: Is there even such a thing as "institutional art"?
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could argue this pro or con better than I, but just for snicks I'll ask: Is there even such a thing as "institutional art"?
Lucas Films productions are not the same as a YouTube upload. Sony albums are not the same as those recorded and mixed at home with Logic Pro and put onto Bandcamp. Bethesda Softworks projects are not the same as indie games someone spends years coding in his basement. Audible promotions are not the same as your co-worker's self-published young adult novel on Kindle.
Of course there's such a thing.
The point is, the kind of art that gets professionally marketed to us to create a higher return on its initial investment (institutional art) is lacking now, and people know it. Distribution channels are being abandoned for more direct relationships between artists and fans. There will always be distribution institutions that fund projects, but it's getting fuzzy now in terms of what's an indie project and what isn't.
-
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could argue this pro or con better than I, but just for snicks I'll ask: Is there even such a thing as "institutional art"?
Lucas Films productions are not the same as a YouTube upload. Sony albums are not the same as those recorded and mixed at home with Logic Pro and put onto Bandcamp. Bethesda Softworks projects are not the same as indie games someone spends years coding in his basement. Audible promotions are not the same as your co-worker's self-published young adult novel on Kindle.
Of course there's such a thing.
The point is, the kind of art that gets professionally marketed to us to create a higher return on its initial investment (institutional art) is lacking now, and people know it. Distribution channels are being abandoned for more direct relationships between artists and fans. There will always be distribution institutions that fund projects, but it's getting fuzzy now in terms of what's an indie project and what isn't.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
Lucas Films productions are not the same as a YouTube upload. Sony albums are not the same as those recorded and mixed at home with Logic Pro and put onto Bandcamp. Bethesda Softworks projects are not the same as indie games someone spends years coding in his basement. Audible promotions are not the same as your co-worker's self-published young adult novel on Kindle.
The point is, the kind of art that gets professionally marketed to us to create a higher return on its initial investment (institutional art) is lacking now, and people know it. Distribution channels are being abandoned for more direct relationships between artists and fans. There will always be distribution institutions that fund projects, but it's getting fuzzy now in terms of what's an indie project and what isn't.
Okay . . . I think we're going in different directions here. Which I'm shocked because that totally never happens. (Eyeroll).
All those creators you mentioned, Lucas Films and so on, their output is produced by one creator or maybe a small collaboration of people with the same vision. Only when it is deemed profitable to do so is the finished product put into distribition, at which point it becomes "institutional art". But it really isn't; it's still the product of a single original artist.
Then the basement people, the indies, strut their stuff, but if it goes big, it's because it's pretty much derivative -- ticky-tacky stuff that is made with far more of a profit motive than a desire to make something memorable or original. Speaking very generally, of course.
That's what I meant when I asked the question.
Art is art, and bidness is bidness, and both are fine -- depending on what your market wants and what floats your boat. But we'd have to get into a thing about what is art, and excuse me, but hellz to the no, I'm too tired.
Besides, I think I already shot my bolt in that regard with this post.
-
All those creators you mentioned, Lucas Films and so on, their output is produced by one creator or maybe a small collaboration of people with the same vision. Only when it is deemed profitable to do so is the finished product put into distribition, at which point it becomes "institutional art". But it really isn't; it's still the product of a single original artist.
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well. Ask Larry about this and how often the face of an album or band actually does all the necessary work.
Then the basement people, the indies, strut their stuff, but if it goes big, it's because it's pretty much derivative -- ticky-tacky stuff that is made with far more of a profit motive than a desire to make something memorable or original. Speaking very generally, of course.
Just no. For one, my point is that indie artists no longer have to make it big. And the ones who are big time are no longer necessarily institutional. It's fuzzy now, that was my point. But if smaller creators do go mainstream, it's often it's because they made something original—the big guys can do derivative all day long, and they do. Reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. prove this. Originality is one thing indie artists can compete on.
Please love yourself.
-
All those creators you mentioned, Lucas Films and so on, their output is produced by one creator or maybe a small collaboration of people with the same vision. Only when it is deemed profitable to do so is the finished product put into distribition, at which point it becomes "institutional art". But it really isn't; it's still the product of a single original artist.
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well. Ask Larry about this and how often the face of an album or band actually does all the necessary work.
Then the basement people, the indies, strut their stuff, but if it goes big, it's because it's pretty much derivative -- ticky-tacky stuff that is made with far more of a profit motive than a desire to make something memorable or original. Speaking very generally, of course.
Just no. For one, my point is that indie artists no longer have to make it big. And the ones who are big time are no longer necessarily institutional. It's fuzzy now, that was my point. But if smaller creators do go mainstream, it's often it's because they made something original—the big guys can do derivative all day long, and they do. Reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. prove this. Originality is one thing indie artists can compete on.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
All those creators you mentioned, Lucas Films and so on, their output is produced by one creator or maybe a small collaboration of people with the same vision. Only when it is deemed profitable to do so is the finished product put into distribition, at which point it becomes "institutional art". But it really isn't; it's still the product of a single original artist.
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well. Ask Larry about this and how often the face of an album or band actually does all the necessary work.
Then the basement people, the indies, strut their stuff, but if it goes big, it's because it's pretty much derivative -- ticky-tacky stuff that is made with far more of a profit motive than a desire to make something memorable or original. Speaking very generally, of course.
Just no. For one, my point is that indie artists no longer have to make it big. And the ones who are big time are no longer necessarily institutional. It's fuzzy now, that was my point. But if smaller creators do go mainstream, it's often it's because they made something original—the big guys can do derivative all day long, and they do. Reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. prove this. Originality is one thing indie artists can compete on.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
the big guys can do derivative all day long, and they do. Reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. prove this.
But it all started with one original idea. Ie, Star Wars.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
the big guys can do derivative all day long, and they do. Reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. prove this.
But it all started with one original idea. Ie, Star Wars.
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
the big guys can do derivative all day long, and they do. Reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. prove this.
But it all started with one original idea. Ie, Star Wars.
No, it didn't. Spielberg helped him even with that.
-
Using Star Wars as an example. The original Star Wars movie, was it “indie” or was it “institutional” at the time it was made?
@Axtremus said in The end of culture and art:
Using Star Wars as an example. The original Star Wars movie, was it “indie” or was it “institutional” at the time it was made?
Still institutional because a studio with union members and a marketing department were involved in the making of it.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
I'm speaking to the idea put forth in the article. The point is that our media models are changing. Mainstream people are distributing directly. More indie people don't need to make it big and have no desire to. Split hairs about what constitutes art and concepts all you want, it doesn't have anything to do with the article's point.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
"Give me a minute!! I know there's a light switch in here some place!! .... oh shit the bulb is burned out....."
-
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
I'm speaking to the idea put forth in the article. The point is that our media models are changing. Mainstream people are distributing directly. More indie people don't need to make it big and have no desire to. Split hairs about what constitutes art and concepts all you want, it doesn't have anything to do with the article's point.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
I'm speaking to the idea put forth in the article. The point is that our media models are changing. Mainstream people are distributing directly. More indie people don't need to make it big and have no desire to. Split hairs about what constitutes art and concepts all you want, it doesn't have anything to do with the article's point.
Yes.. prior to the internet, you had no other way to be heard than to connect with a major label or studio. There were lots of talented people who tried to make it that could have carved out a small niche for themselves, but the blue suits wouldn't invest in anyone they didn't see as earning them a certain amount of money. If the blue suits didn't see a profit path, that was the end of things for you - until the internet gave a way to put your work out without their help.
Still, it's better to have their backing than not... nothing works like a fat marketing campaign....
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
I'm speaking to the idea put forth in the article. The point is that our media models are changing. Mainstream people are distributing directly. More indie people don't need to make it big and have no desire to. Split hairs about what constitutes art and concepts all you want, it doesn't have anything to do with the article's point.
Yes.. prior to the internet, you had no other way to be heard than to connect with a major label or studio. There were lots of talented people who tried to make it that could have carved out a small niche for themselves, but the blue suits wouldn't invest in anyone they didn't see as earning them a certain amount of money. If the blue suits didn't see a profit path, that was the end of things for you - until the internet gave a way to put your work out without their help.
Still, it's better to have their backing than not... nothing works like a fat marketing campaign....
@Larry said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
Still, it's better to have their backing than not... nothing works like a fat marketing campaign....
I think even that is going to get a little fuzzy: big names going off on their own (if they can get out of contracts), and indie people finding other means. The institutional model will never go away I don't think. Just that some folks will find alternatives (which for many will include a day job).
-
@Larry said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
Still, it's better to have their backing than not... nothing works like a fat marketing campaign....
I think even that is going to get a little fuzzy: big names going off on their own (if they can get out of contracts), and indie people finding other means. The institutional model will never go away I don't think. Just that some folks will find alternatives (which for many will include a day job).
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
@Larry said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
@Catseye3 said in The end of culture and art:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The end of culture and art:
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Movies take hundreds of people to make. They're all essential, all several hundred of them. Albums take a team as well.
I specifically used the word 'creator'. I didn't say 'make'. Of course those projects take hundreds of people, but those hundreds are, to one degree or another, gofers. The concept, the idea, comes from one or a very few.
Still, it's better to have their backing than not... nothing works like a fat marketing campaign....
I think even that is going to get a little fuzzy: big names going off on their own (if they can get out of contracts), and indie people finding other means. The institutional model will never go away I don't think. Just that some folks will find alternatives (which for many will include a day job).
You are correct. It's still a little risky for a "big name" to go off on their own, though. I have seen some who tried it and their careers just died. But other than that minor point, I agree with your assessment.
As for cat's "gopher" remark...... There are no "gophers" getting any of the money. None that is except the occasional situation where the artist who get the credit wasn't even involved.... I've been involved in quite a few projects where "big name" artists known for their playing skills got credit for playing something, but wasn't even there because they weren't good enough musically to pull it off, so some bald headed middle aged guy played his part for him...,
