3 ms·

I see it in a similar way. These low barrier distribution channels provide an opportunity for people to live experiences beyond their financial capability. Perf

by Frqy3 11y ago

I see it in a similar way. These low barrier distribution channels provide an opportunity for people to live experiences beyond their financial capability. Performing on stage, walking the red carpet, etc. Sure, some strike it rich, but most don't. The same power law that exists throughout the entertainment industry. And regarding the offset/highlighted comment about Van Gogh. If the author knew their art history (or at least had seen and paid attention to Mona Lisa Smile), he only sold one painting during his lifetime [0]. One might even go so far as to draw a parallel between his position with the art dealer Goupil & Cie and somebody today "shilling themselves out on audible.com". [0] http://www.vangoghgallery.com/misc/faq.html http://www.vangoghgallery.com/misc/faq.html

lmm 11y ago
Everyone mentions Van Gogh every time this comes up because he's the one artist out the top thousand or million who couldn't sell during his lifetime. He was an extremely rare exception.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  He sold, just to his brother. He is a rare exception though.
- sideshowb 11y ago
  Mozart struggled with poverty towards the end of his life.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >because he's the one artist out the top thousand or million who couldn't sell during his lifetime. He was an extremely rare exception. Actually he's the canonical example of how it was for the VAST majority of artists. Being rich, or having a rich patron, was very much an exception. There are tons of poets, painters, musicians, writers etc that never got any of that, including tons of later recognized ones.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  Pretty much the opposite, in fact if there's a continuum it's between canonical professions of: "accountant" -> all qualified practitioners have a steady income, little variation between accountants and "rockstar" -> huge variation - winner takes all, a few practitioners get most of the fame and income, the majority get nothing. No prizes for working out where "artist" and "celebrity" fit on that continuum. The drivers is, how much does the business model scale? Accountancy is still pretty much 1-to-1; but everyone on spotify/iTunes can in theory listen to the same hit band (within same musical tastes) so the 2nd-ranked band gets far less play than the 1st, despite being nearly as good. Scale down to the 100th who is also quite good but has to have a day job. If you know musicians you have met them. Yes, portraiture was in Rembrandt's day a business model that did not scale, but van Gough was later - he wasn't a portraitist and photography was established by then.

by Frqy3 11y ago

lmm 11y ago

Everyone mentions Van Gogh every time this comes up because he's the one artist out the top thousand or million who couldn't sell during his lifetime. He was an extremely rare exception.

danieltillett 11y ago
He sold, just to his brother. He is a rare exception though.
sideshowb 11y ago
Mozart struggled with poverty towards the end of his life.
coldtea 11y ago
>because he's the one artist out the top thousand or million who couldn't sell during his lifetime. He was an extremely rare exception. Actually he's the canonical example of how it was for the VAST majority of artists. Being rich, or having a rich patron, was very much an exception. There are tons of poets, painters, musicians, writers etc that never got any of that, including tons of later recognized ones.
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
Pretty much the opposite, in fact if there's a continuum it's between canonical professions of: "accountant" -> all qualified practitioners have a steady income, little variation between accountants and "rockstar" -> huge variation - winner takes all, a few practitioners get most of the fame and income, the majority get nothing. No prizes for working out where "artist" and "celebrity" fit on that continuum. The drivers is, how much does the business model scale? Accountancy is still pretty much 1-to-1; but everyone on spotify/iTunes can in theory listen to the same hit band (within same musical tastes) so the 2nd-ranked band gets far less play than the 1st, despite being nearly as good. Scale down to the 100th who is also quite good but has to have a day job. If you know musicians you have met them. Yes, portraiture was in Rembrandt's day a business model that did not scale, but van Gough was later - he wasn't a portraitist and photography was established by then.