Scott Timberg’s book Culture Crash makes a case that the transformation of our culture right now is killing artists’ ability to make a living making art. He cites a number of reasons, but in the end it boils down to the fact that with so much free culture/art available, people are increasingly unwilling to pay for the art they use, thus making it economically unviable for artists to make their living being artists.
The book is full of reporting about the decline of traditional culture production jobs and you can argue about his analysis about why this is happening and whether it’s something new or part of long-term trends. But it’s clear that our relationships with art and artists is shifting.
But then there’s this curious argument by William Giraldi in a review of the book in The New Republic:
“What does it mean when the middle-class makers of art are relegated to a socioeconomic purgatory? The dearth of public funding for the arts mirrors the dearth of public ardor for the arts, and yet, somehow, we’re awash in dilettantes decanting their wares on the midden of American culture. Everyone, it seems, is an artist. Toss a stone into any crowd and you’ll hit someone who’s writing a novel. (Yeats once opened his address to the Rhymers’ Club with: “The only thing certain about us is that we are too many.”) The vestal and very simple concept of supply and demand will not be debauched out of its simplicity: When everyone’s an artist and no one spends money on art, art is stripped of any economic traction and serious artists can’t earn a living. Couple that with a population that overwhelmingly doesn’t mind if art and artists go extinct and you have, ladies and gentlemen, what can be fairly called a crisis.”
What an extraordinary statement. Let me try to re-phrase: So art is such an attractive thing that “everyone” wants to make it, ergo everyone is an artist (or thinks they are an artist). And because there are so many artists (and presumably so much art) that there is an oversupply, the market collapses, and “real” artists can’t make a living at it, thereby depriving the world of real art and defining a crisis. The implication of course is that the world’s “good” art (sorry for all the scare quotes) and artists get devalued out of the marketplace and we are all impoverished.
Is this not the argument made against any kind of democratization? Let everybody participate and you devalue the quality of whatever it is?
No question that a glut of a product brings prices down (the market for crude oil for example). But the argument that too many people think of themselves as artists and create art is causing the value of art to drop is bizarre. Hasn’t the arts education lobby been arguing the opposite for years? That too few children being taught the arts leads to shrinking audiences and a decline of culture?
In order to create demand for something you have to create a market. To create a market you have to establish value. To establish value you need people who understand what they’re looking at or hearing. And then you need some clear definitions of quality and value. Hierarchy. The problem we have now is not that there are too many artists or too much art (in fact, I’d argue that everyone thinking they are an artist sounds like a really good start on creating a bigger market). The problem is that our definitions of quality haven’t caught up with our new expectations for art (and artists). And we haven’t been persuasive in establishing what current values are.
Many of the things that were hard to do yesterday aren’t so difficult today. Saying that isn’t being dismissive of the past, it’s acknowledging that we’ve moved on, that we’re evolving. The world is full of electrifying ideas. And the world hasn’t become any easier. Surely that’s enough to figure out where value lies.
I hope I live long enough to see how this plays out. Perhaps the art market isn’t any more democratic than the political “market,” since big collectors are often the prey of great struntsmen, flamboyant personalities, etc. and tip the scales until an artist or art movement is merely famous for being famous. So much for the difficulty of assessing “value.”
I’m old enough to remember Darby Bannard’s article, I think it was for ARTS magazine in the 70s, called “The Art Glut.” One problem, at least in this country, has been since at least then the hordes emerging from graduate art schools vs. the thin number of arts programs in public or even private schools, whence a moderately interested public.
I once imagined that there’d be so many artists that we’d make a living through other means and merely trade with one another the fruits of our imaginations. But then I ask myself what I’d want to trade for one of my paintings. A CD of new music? Still working on that one.
Just some thoughts.
Since most of the arts exist outside the marketplace, economists seem to have trouble defining their economic behavior. The USA has the highest oversupply of high quality orchestra musicians in the world. Most are unemployed or under-employed. The average salary for a musician in a regional orchestra (the vast majority of jobs) is only $13,000 per year. Wind and percussion positions in the higher paid ICSOM orchestras only open a few times a decade, if even that.
And yet in what would seem a complete contradiction of supply and demand, the musicians in our top 7 or 8 orchestras are the highest paid in the world. Why are these musicians paid so much when there are so many musicians of similar quality looking for work?
One reason is that the top orchestras are extremely concerned with status and measure it by how much they pay. The highest paid musician in the Philadelphia Orchestra is its first trumpet who makes about $300,000 per year – the price it took to poach him from the Dallas Symphony. Dallas hired a new trumpeter just as good for far less money, but Philly got to assert its pecking order.
Why is so much wealth concentrated at the top in our orchestral world? Is extravagance at the top the natural ethos of our private funding system supported by the wealthy? This system concentrates the arts in a few cities that are financial centers while the rest of the country is neglected. We thus rank 39th in the world for opera performances per capita, behind all European countries and just ahead of Costa Rica in position 40. And yet the productions in our few genuinely major houses are among the most lavish in the world. Their seasons are very short and tickets are on average about 3 to 4 times more expensive than for comparable houses in Europe. Chicago and San Francisco do about 75 to 100 performances per year while major European houses perform up to 300. A small wealthy public is serviced luxuriously in short seasons in a few financial centers while the rest of society is neglected.
The salaries of the administrators in our top institutions are astronomical compared to their European colleagues, and even though we have far fewer such institutions which would presumably reduce demand create an oversupply of good administrators.
It seems that economists do not fully understand the nature of cultural plutocracy in the arts. Somehow scarcity of demand for labor has created higher costs at the top, even though there is not a scarcity of good administrators and artists. The high costs are created by a desire for status more than for finding qualified personnel. And yet scarcity of demand at the bottom has followed the classic result of low paid labor.
it may seem strange, but the New Republic writer is exactly correct; digital access and other forms of self-publishing in one format or another, from CDs to books, has made production cheap and accessible. It is not anti-democratic to say that the result is a glut of mediocrity, and it’s not even arguable – just look what’s out there. Because the deeper problem is that GOOD artists are putting out more bad work in the current system of access, which magnifies the problem. Just look around.
Allen: I’m not arguing about whether there’s a glut of mediocrity. That’s indisputable. My point is that when a lot more people start doing something, the standards for that thing can’t help but change and evolve. If more people are making art, then they have a different understanding of that art than those who don’t know it or are trying to make it. And if there’s a glut, then those who know more are motivated to look for the work that really stands out. Perhaps it takes a sea of mediocrity to show why the extraordinary matters.
If 30 years ago it was amazing simply because someone could play all the notes in tune and now everyone can do it with ease, then the standard of what it takes to stand out has changed. As has the definition of mediocrity. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay for the commonplace (see Bill Osborne’s comment below) but if artists want to stand out they have to convince people of the their value.
Look – the glut is a reality and it isn’t going away. You can see that as a bad thing because you can’t sell what’s available already in plentiful supply. Or you can be grateful that a lot more people are so interested in art that they’re compelled to want to make it themselves (even at a mediocre level) and see it as an opportunity – an expanded market, as it were – to do something different and stand out for people who have learned to value the difference.
Doug, you have zeroed in on the real underlying issue. While many analyze the problem or prescribe solutions in order to bolster the standing of artists, the heart of the matter, in a general way, is that what artists are creating is disconnected from what others find has value – or sufficient value to support artists in their creative endeavors. There is no doubt that people spend their money where they find value, whether it be a meal or concert tickets or some other activity at whatever the going price is. They are willing to do that because it has value for them. For so long as artists’ intentionality is rooted in expression and not in delivering value, there will be a natural tension between their creation and making a living.
So artists are putting out too much bad work, and people don’t find “value” in what artists do. Rod McKuen (the King of Kitsch) sold over 100 million records and 60 million books worldwide, according to the Associated Press. Brittany Spears has sold over 100 million albums worldwide and over 100 million singles. Apparently people found “value” in what they do. Such fine “entrepreneurship!” Or perhaps the problem is a bit more complex than some of the commentators here seem to think………..
Art is in ones soul and a true artist lets it come out in their work with little regard for what others think or feel. Rod McKuen and Brittany Spears may be good examples if you have a taste for their art. I’m sure they like the money, but there is a joy in the work they do. They are just lucky to have conformed to the tastes of the crowd. I’m sure given a choice they might sing or write it differently if just pleasing themselves.
History will continue to repeat itself. Great artists will, as Doug stated, “do something different and stand out for people who have learned to value the difference”. Unfortunately, many will starve as they create their art and may only be recognized much later. Perhaps after they have passed. How many in the art world do we know who fall into that category?
Art is an expression of being. That is why it is so important that we as humans learn to understand, appreciate and value art for it’s workmanship, mind-sight and value to humanity. Without this our humanity is lost. Producing copies upon copies of art, as so many do these days is humanity lost! And….so goes our country.
Neither nor. It’s stupidity.
And the main reason for stupidity is lack of education. If we donot educate our children about the importance of culture for the existence of our human race, then we cannot expect our adults to know about it. When our children leave school, they should have been told about what is necessary and elementary for a good human life.
In German I always say, what is lacking is “Herzensbildung”. Artists should be esteemed as one of the elements, that help our society to be social and human, cooperative and friendly. It should be esteemed as elementary and basic for human existence just like medical doctors, judges, police, public libraries, museums, teachers, food, sunlight, good air, etc.
And I beleive, that “Herzensbildung” is not wanted by the politicians. As soon as You have both – Bildung and Herzensbildung – we stop to believe what they say.
Oskar Werner has supplied us with the following truth:
Who was good at heart and Nazi, was not intelligent. Who was intelligent and Nazi, was not good at heart. Who was intelligent and good at heart, was no Nazi.
Instead of “Nazi” there are many other words that You can enter instead – and the sentence will be still true.
There is one more sentence about all that:
We learn from history that we don’t learn from history. Mahatma Gandhi
Art is the true aristocracy, where achievement, talent, and merit rule. Supposedly. Democracy is the enemy of creative achievement. Anyone can weave a basket if shown how. Anyone can throw paint on a canvas. When fine art becomes the equivalent of unskilled art, the need for training and excellence is removed. Modernism killed the demand for expert craftsmanship and technique underlying creative vision. Modernism must be killed off, as well as post-Modernism. We need to return to Classicism and Romanticism with an academic basis. The trends of the 20th century erased the perception of a need for tradition, and that was shallow and just plain wrong. Yes, everyone wants to be called an artist, to give the appearance of being a renaissance man, which makes it impossible for the genuine article to succeed. Grants are part of this hell, with all their requirements and social agenda burdening the creative artist, so much so that it is impossible to be in relationship with them. Artists need what they have always needed: hands-off, appreciative patrons who only demand their best, and have a noble sense of duty and responsibility, including the artist’s physical needs. Those who are trained in the fine academies should be taken on by such noble patrons and supported for the rest of their lives, or there should be a constant flow of commissions. However, working to order does not produce the best art. In lieu of such patrons, we should have the Dutch system of basic patronage from the government once one qualifies. Just enough to live on somewhere, full health insurance, and the supplies one needs to work. We have the best culture in the US for art, but the worst support. That must be fixed. Establishing such standards of professionalism would relegate the dilettante and amateur back where they belong. Exceptions must always be allowed, of course, many great artists mature late. Hence, the genius-type grants. We need more of them, with better selection processes.
That won’t work. The vast majority of contemporary art is bought as a tool by people who want to mark themselves as the liberal elite. What about people who want to mark themselves as conservative elites–will they buy contemporary realist art? No. They’ll buy old masters.
Thus, not much of a market for contemporary realist painters.
For purposes of this discussion how are we defining “artist”? Are the various creatives involved in the advertising industry, the movie industry, the videogame industry, not to mention the countless creatives who make professional-quality work and post it to Vimeo or the D-Word, because they managed to score a brief grant, being counted? The commercial industries listed above are huge multi-multi-billion dollar industries employing armies of talented creatives of different varieties who are putting bread on their tables with their artistic training. Read the credit list at the end of the next Pixar movie if you doubt this.
Do we look down our noses at them because they are commercial or industrial, and not “fine”, artists? What were Da Vinci and Michelangelo and Caravaggio? They painted on commission for wealthy patrons or for the Church where they functioned as advertising artists, promoting the Christian faith or the glory of God and Church. What were Capability Brown or Thomas Telford? Everything they did was on commission or underwritten by investors.
This notion of the “fine” artist nobly and independently producing works reflecting his personal vision and supporting himself by their sale to members of the middle-class public was at best a fleeting and fantastical moment in art history and many icons of that crowd, e.g., Gauguin or van Gogh, lived in poverty and struggled to sell anything at all. Many of the best known artists of the past lived from gig to gig and supported themselves with other jobs (both Michelangelo and daVinci were military engineers).
Haha the arts education lobby. Must be the most impotent lobby on the face of the earth. I don’t think it exists.
I have noticed that artists look to everyone but themselves when the rent on their garret becomes harder to pay. That *fine* artists should feel they have been unjustly afflicted with a drop in demand indicates that they paid too much attention to the lecturers in Art School. To believe they would be entitled to future income and adoration commensurate with their hard-won talent/gift was silly.
It matters not whether it was an Archbishop whispering in the ears of a Pope or an artist telling a newspaper that her cum stained sheets were part of an *Art Exhibition* the fickle Good Marketing Goddess has always been the way Art of any shape size or medium sells.
I am an artist. I create *stuff* people put on their walls. They buy it because they like it love it, or it matches their couch. I create because is as trite as it may sound, it IS part of who I am. If I don’t have glass or paint I use sticks, leaves, and stones. Ultimately it has nothing to do with making a living; although I have over 40 years mostly succeeded in paying my bills.
It could also be argued that there WERE a lot of musicians back then as well but didn’t have the avenue to put themselves out there. For example, unless you signed with a big label and they promoted you with millions of dollars no one would know you. Today everybody is a rock star by simply adding their song online. Consequently, no one cares because everybody can do it. What is happening is content is being uploaded to youtube, spotify, etc but no one is watching it or listening to it. It’ll just sit there with a 100 views over 5 years. Unless you can drive traffic to your content, it is as if it was never released it. With so much content out there, you can’t really get people to listen to it. They might be interested for 5 seconds then they’ll go back to their Adele record. That’s the power of the major label, it literally MADE an artist a household name through exposure. In essence, unless you are out there like that and backed up by a major label, the masses won’t care about you. If you don’t believe that, go to your friend and give him your music and tell him you are as good as say Frank Sinatra and that he should worship you as well. You will get laughed at because even if you are good, you will get the inevitable argument, “Well, he’s Frank” and you are not. So essentially somebody with talent (which is still important) needs to be indoctrinated through a system and sold to the masses. Unless that happens no one will give a shit about you. So we are back to square one, we need major labels because they are pretty much the only real king makers. It is a mess today because anyone who can play a D minor chord wants a multi year record deal with a major label. The labels turned their back on the artists and decided all they want to do is make money and not necessarily develop art. So they settle for the bottom line or the lowest common denominator. This is why Rap/Hip Hop is the major genre in America. It is easier for labels to manage a single person and build him up rather than manage a rock band that is pretty much deemed playing antiquated music.
So what you’re telling me is… make a VR experience