4 ms·

Yeah, it's harder to be an artist because the internet has connected the whole world. The world used to be less connected and as a result, had lots of inefficie

Yeah, it's harder to be an artist because the internet has connected the whole world. The world used to be less connected and as a result, had lots of inefficient redundancy. If you wanted to see a play before, your options are pretty limited. Now, you can watch the best cast in the world from 10 years ago. It's only bad to be an artist now because art has become competitive. This is awful for the artists, but awesome for everyone who enjoys art. This is truly the peak of art. Think about what you could experience before and what you can experience now. And not only think of yourself, but all of the people in the world who now have access. It's mind-blowing. Like all industries, competition sucks for the entrenched. Artists can't just write a book anymore or can't just paint something beautiful. The landscape has completely changed. The choice has never been greater and artists must adapt by finding their niches.

jjj123 6y ago
I think it’s not just that there’s more art now, it’s also that the systems we use to consume it (spotify, Netflix, etc) shape that art, sometimes for the better but often for the worse. It’s like when the CEO of spotify said recently that “you can’t make an album every 3 years and be successful anymore.” He’s mostly right, but he skips over the part that he is probably the person most responsible for that fact. He also skips over the fact that cranking out 3x as much music is unlikely to result in higher quality art. So I guess all I’m saying is that I agree with you, but it’s not inevitable and it doesn’t have to be this way if we don’t like it.
- lukevp 6y ago
  Surely the point the Spotify CEO was making is that music has become unbundled and shouldn’t be released as a collection in an album because consumption is at the track level now, and not that you should make more music as a rule.
- Swizec 6y ago
  > cranking out 3x as much music is unlikely to result in higher quality art On the contrary, the more you produce, the more outstanding your hits. Yes there's more crap too, but nobody sees the crap. They only see the good stuff (thanks to recommendation algorithms, charts, and marketing). Here's the usual pottery class story that people use to talk about this phenomena: > The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the "quantity" group: fifty pound of pots rated an "A", forty pounds a "B", and so on. Those being graded on "quality", however, needed to produce only one pot - albeit a perfect one - to get an "A". > Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the "quantity" group was busily churning out piles of work - and learning from their mistakes - the "quality" group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay. You can also look at statistics. Across all fields, the people who produce the largest volume of work also have the most outstanding successes. Beatles, for example, credit their success to being forced to play strip clubs for 8+ hours every day for months. Created lots of practice.
  - vladmk 6y ago
    Love the story and really agree with that philosophy
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    Run a second-rate band through strip clubs for 8hrs a day for months and you won't get the Beatles. You washed quality out of the conversation by only looking at the stats. Roald Dahl stepped out of a fighter plane in ww2 and into a writing role. His first stories were wartime stories, which has a quality you can't grind out. He has since proved himself to be a good writer. Someone in your pottery class mistook perfectionism for quality. There are a few french chefs that run perfectionism as a culture, with the corollary that if you think you achieved it, you haven't and you should start again. It works in a time-limited task like making food for hungry customers. It doesn't work when you allow people to ponder what it means to be perfect forever. The important qualities in life have a meaning and aren't just points on a scale to perfection which you have to grind out.
cafard 6y ago
Since the invention of videotape it has been possible to watch plays with great casts. But I think that live drama is the form least affected by this, for two reasons: it is about live actors in front of an audience; the context changes with the times. Think of Henry V performed in WW II England (yes, yes, I am thinking of Olivier's movie) or of Lysistrata put on by the literal minded during the second Gulf War.
henru 6y ago
For artists making very niche work this is a blessing though, its easier to find your audience and cheaper to broadcast your work
rmrfstar 6y ago
> This is truly the peak of art. [1,2]? Hamilton? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/09/18/provocative-art-basel-banana-gifted-to-guggenheim-museum/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/09/18/provoc... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
- dumbfoundded 6y ago
  It's easy enough to find silly examples from literally any period. [1] https://www.pinterest.co.uk/senoritamadmax/ancient-art-fails/ https://www.pinterest.co.uk/senoritamadmax/ancient-art-fails...
coldtea 6y ago
>This is awful for the artists, but awesome for everyone who enjoys art. I'm not so sure about the last part. Because in the meantime, theater has become "televised performance", concern has become "album or stream", etc. So they get a better performance but not exactly the same thing as before... And lots of the magic is in the moment and the interaction with the live audience and in the volatility of the experience... I think that the end result is not that it's "awesome for everyone who enjoys art" but that people consume art more conveniently and disposably, and (most of it) enjoy it less.
- dumbfoundded 6y ago
  Actually, it's the opposite. At least for music. Because streaming revenue is so much lower than producing a CD or record, artists are increasingly focusing on live performances (1). While music sales free fall, live music revenues continue to grow at a fast rate. There are also semi-live music experiences where small streamers interact with their audience in real time over twitch. No matter what type of music you enjoy, it has never been easier to consume it in an exploding variety of formats and levels of interaction. The level of access and variety is unparalleled. (1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096409/live-music-industry-revenue-worldwide-by-source/#:~:text=The%20projected%20figure%20for%202018,over%2025%20billion%20by%202023 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096409/live-music-indus....

jjj123 6y ago

I think it’s not just that there’s more art now, it’s also that the systems we use to consume it (spotify, Netflix, etc) shape that art, sometimes for the better but often for the worse. It’s like when the CEO of spotify said recently that “you can’t make an album every 3 years and be successful anymore.” He’s mostly right, but he skips over the part that he is probably the person most responsible for that fact. He also skips over the fact that cranking out 3x as much music is unlikely to result in higher quality art. So I guess all I’m saying is that I agree with you, but it’s not inevitable and it doesn’t have to be this way if we don’t like it.

lukevp 6y ago
Surely the point the Spotify CEO was making is that music has become unbundled and shouldn’t be released as a collection in an album because consumption is at the track level now, and not that you should make more music as a rule.
Swizec 6y ago
> cranking out 3x as much music is unlikely to result in higher quality art On the contrary, the more you produce, the more outstanding your hits. Yes there's more crap too, but nobody sees the crap. They only see the good stuff (thanks to recommendation algorithms, charts, and marketing). Here's the usual pottery class story that people use to talk about this phenomena: > The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the "quantity" group: fifty pound of pots rated an "A", forty pounds a "B", and so on. Those being graded on "quality", however, needed to produce only one pot - albeit a perfect one - to get an "A". > Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the "quantity" group was busily churning out piles of work - and learning from their mistakes - the "quality" group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay. You can also look at statistics. Across all fields, the people who produce the largest volume of work also have the most outstanding successes. Beatles, for example, credit their success to being forced to play strip clubs for 8+ hours every day for months. Created lots of practice.
- vladmk 6y ago
  Love the story and really agree with that philosophy
- friendlybus 6y ago
  Run a second-rate band through strip clubs for 8hrs a day for months and you won't get the Beatles. You washed quality out of the conversation by only looking at the stats. Roald Dahl stepped out of a fighter plane in ww2 and into a writing role. His first stories were wartime stories, which has a quality you can't grind out. He has since proved himself to be a good writer. Someone in your pottery class mistook perfectionism for quality. There are a few french chefs that run perfectionism as a culture, with the corollary that if you think you achieved it, you haven't and you should start again. It works in a time-limited task like making food for hungry customers. It doesn't work when you allow people to ponder what it means to be perfect forever. The important qualities in life have a meaning and aren't just points on a scale to perfection which you have to grind out.

cafard 6y ago

Since the invention of videotape it has been possible to watch plays with great casts. But I think that live drama is the form least affected by this, for two reasons: it is about live actors in front of an audience; the context changes with the times. Think of Henry V performed in WW II England (yes, yes, I am thinking of Olivier's movie) or of Lysistrata put on by the literal minded during the second Gulf War.

henru 6y ago

For artists making very niche work this is a blessing though, its easier to find your audience and cheaper to broadcast your work

rmrfstar 6y ago

> This is truly the peak of art. [1,2]? Hamilton? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/09/18/provocative-art-basel-banana-gifted-to-guggenheim-museum/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/09/18/provoc... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...

dumbfoundded 6y ago
It's easy enough to find silly examples from literally any period. [1] https://www.pinterest.co.uk/senoritamadmax/ancient-art-fails/ https://www.pinterest.co.uk/senoritamadmax/ancient-art-fails...

coldtea 6y ago

>This is awful for the artists, but awesome for everyone who enjoys art. I'm not so sure about the last part. Because in the meantime, theater has become "televised performance", concern has become "album or stream", etc. So they get a better performance but not exactly the same thing as before... And lots of the magic is in the moment and the interaction with the live audience and in the volatility of the experience... I think that the end result is not that it's "awesome for everyone who enjoys art" but that people consume art more conveniently and disposably, and (most of it) enjoy it less.

dumbfoundded 6y ago
Actually, it's the opposite. At least for music. Because streaming revenue is so much lower than producing a CD or record, artists are increasingly focusing on live performances (1). While music sales free fall, live music revenues continue to grow at a fast rate. There are also semi-live music experiences where small streamers interact with their audience in real time over twitch. No matter what type of music you enjoy, it has never been easier to consume it in an exploding variety of formats and levels of interaction. The level of access and variety is unparalleled. (1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096409/live-music-industry-revenue-worldwide-by-source/#:~:text=The%20projected%20figure%20for%202018,over%2025%20billion%20by%202023 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096409/live-music-indus....