This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 20 Jul 2008, by Yule Heibel.
Simon Jenkins ponders the seeming paradox that while music cd/ record sales plummet and prices for individual recordings drop as well, live concerts sell out at premium prices. He ponders other, related phenomena, too -- readings by writers, lectures, live performances of any kind: all seem to get more attention (and MONEY) than the products themselves.
He concludes and argues that people are willing to pay for what they want, and what they want is the real, authentic thing (i.e., person), not another technologically mediated simulacrum.
Two things: one, if he's right, this has dire consequences for visual art, unless the visual arts want to devolved strictly into performance art; and two, for those of us who are terrified of public speaking/ public performances, this isn't comforting news. Some of us like the internet because it preserves our sanguinity (if that's a word).
socialcomputing socialtheory reality face_time business art_reception arts
Yule Heibel on 2008-07-20
Ok, I do have a problem with this assessment: if these festivals aren't really making enough money even to pay the performers, what's in it for the performers? Elsewhere Jenkins suggests that performance will pay the bills, yet here he references festivals that draw on free talent. Will that talent make money "in the future" (how far off, anyway)? Is that something to bank on? It's quite a gamble, imo...
Yule Heibel on 2008-07-20
Just as with music (and with the Pope, in the next paragraph below), these crowds are getting all this entertainment and experience for free. So where is the business model? (And I merely ask because Jenkins points out that the internet's making so many products *freely* available has wrecked a couple of older business models -- such as CD/ record sales.) So if "live" presence is an alternative to the internet's culture of "free," where is the business model if the crowds we're talking about still aren't paying? Or, in the case of music festivals, the organizers charge the crowds (who pay for tix), but don't make enough money to pay the performers? Hmmm?
Yule Heibel on 2008-07-20
THIS I find very compelling, and something to think about. I worried earlier about visual art, and about how it can compete unless it wants to be "performance" art.
But here's the deal: if the art is *housed* in a building that is practically a performance -- i.e., that attracts an audience by virtue of its famous architecture -- then the art can use that sort of "live" or "reality"-based popularity as its frame or as a stepping stone to access public consciousness.
One demonstration of this phenomenon lies in the oldest form of human
communication, politics. In the early days of the internet in 1992, Ross
Perot, the Texan tycoon, claimed that he would transform democracy by
campaigning for the presidency on the web. Bill Clinton responded by
campaigning old style, from the back of a train.
Sixteen years later, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were still barnstorming
around every key state in their primary election battle. They knew that
people would not believe in them unless they were physically and visibly
present on their territory.
The difference of the internet to the campaign lay in sending messages and
raising money. If it supplanted anything it was other media such as the
letter post, radio and television. Obama’s online securing of $270m combined
the e-mail with computer banking to sensational effect. As with show
business, the internet supports live but is in no way a substitute for it.
Clicking a mouse can never beat pumping flesh.
Futurology has a built-in distortion towards technological novelty, while
ignoring the continued appeal of what has gone before. It cannot recognise
what the historian David Edgerton of Imperial College has dubbed “the shock
of the old”. Our demands rarely change over time, only the way in which the
market supplies them.
I find this form of conservatism vastly encouraging. People like people. They
crave the immediacy of human contact and congregation. They want to see
those who inspire or excite them live, not digitised. And what they want,
they will pay for.
Public Stiky Notes
But here's the deal: if the art is *housed* in a building that is practically a performance -- i.e., that attracts an audience by virtue of its famous architecture -- then the art can use that sort of "live" or "reality"-based popularity as its frame or as a stepping stone to access public consciousness.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.