Post: #1

This book just came out, and it could be the most important book published all year.



http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Crash-Kill...ture+crash

I have nearly finished reading it and want to give it my highest recommendation. I was lucky and managed to find a pre-publication proof copy on Amazon here in the UK. So I will be one of the first to have read this book.

The book is an analysis of the shocking destruction of the creative industries over the past decade. Journalists, novelists, graphic designers, film makers, musicians and even architects have being hammered over the past decade. Along with the decline of important cultural resources such as record stores and bookstores.

It is sad to think that we may never again have a healthy cultural climate in which creatives can be fairly paid for their work.

The book looks at the historic, economic and technological reasons behind these changes. And why so little concern is shown to those people in the creative industries who are suffering.

The book also challenges a lot of the myths which utopians try to encourage when they say this is not a problem for the creative industries - but an exciting new opportunity.

A conclusion I have come to is this. Just as artists (and non-artists) give little thought to the sweatshop conditions responsible for the majority of cheap goods for sale in the West. The same short term attitude is now seen in the way we procure art.

Artists may encourage us to think ethically and not just go for the cheapest (ie. free) ways of obtaining cultural products. Yet - sadly that was a battle lost long ago, as we all turned a blind eye to the reasons why so many goods in the West are so cheap.

Another point is this. In the 80's - many in the middle classes ignored the suffering of those in the working class industries who experienced huge job losses as a result of the "exciting new opportunity" of globalisation.

And since the creative industries are largely made up of the middle classes - it is interesting to note that they are now suffering the sectional challenges that heavy industry underwent 20 years ago.

I have started this thread to encourage others to check out this book. And also - so that we can discuss some of the issues facing the artists in a time when it is hard for them to not be constantly ripped off.

Consider these artists:

Miles Davis.

David Bowie.

John Lennon.

Mick Jagger.

There is a very good chance that the future will not contain successful (and talented) artists like the above. Since the system is now stacked against artists. Such that those with talent are now too busy trying to survive, to have the freedom to follow their creative muse wherever it takes them.

Indeed - consider this fact from the book:

Quote:In a single pre-Internet year - 1986 - thirty-one number one songs came from twenty-nine different artists.

By the Internet era, things were very different.

Between 2008 and September 2012, a period of almost five years, there were only sixty-six number-one songs, and nearly half of them were turned out by just six artists - Katy Perry, Rihanna, Flo Rida, the Black Eyed Peas, Adele, and Lady Gaga.

It's not just Indie rock that's getting creamed: A single Adele record sold more than 70 percent of all the classical albums sold in 2011, and more than 60 percent of all the jazz records.

Personally - I love Amazon. I have bought thousands of books from there which I would never have found in a traditional bookshop. So - there is no easy conclusion to draw. Which is sad since it feels that we really are entering the twilight years of the idea of a creative class which is funded well enough to continue to keep adding to our pop culture.

I am sure that most of you have worries in this area as well. Particularly since so many forum members are interested in pursuing work in the creative fields.

So - it will be interesting to see what conclusions others have as well.

I will report back once I have finished the book in the next day or two.

Plato

PS Here is a blog run by the author of the book. I haven't had a chance to check it out properly - but it seems to be a place for him to keep track on the changes to our culture, and the latest developments and news affecting the wider cultural industries.

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturecrash/

Post: #2

I am curious what that book had to say about film which has seen a dearth of creativity in recent years. Every other film is either a remake or a sequel. Its such a waste since the creative potential is out there for movies to be original and unique but it seems studios would rather go with a safe bet than take a chance with a creative and different film instead of the same shit year after year.

Post: #3

[email protected], if you stay away from Hollywood pap and stick with indie and foreign films, which would be doing a small part toward slowing the changes that the author talks about, you would also probably find more of creative interest. I've avoided Hollywood films and the theaters that play them for years, and I'm much better off for it.

@the OP, thought provoking post.

Post: #4

I won't try to argue with a book I haven't read, but I'm really starting to get sick of this point, specifically the bolded part:

Quote:The book is an analysis of the shocking destruction of the creative industries over the past decade. Journalists, novelists, graphic designers, film makers, musicians and even architects have being hammered over the past decade. Along with the decline of important cultural resources such as record stores and bookstores.

It is sad to think that we may never again have a healthy cultural climate in which creatives can be fairly paid for their work.

What artists make nowadays is seemingly always being compared to what they used to make. With musicians in particular, there seems to be this "woe is me" attitude that it's not the old days where an artists selling a million albums was a lock. There's an article in this I want to write (possibly after reading this book) on how our culture is finally operating on a model based on capitalism for the first time in a long time, and the positives and negatives of that (positives: the people decide what is popular, executives respond as opposed to the other way around/ negatives: the people decide what is UNpopular, executives respond).

However, my point in response to the above quote is, what should creative types be paid? Taylor Swift's Red Tour brought in $150 million dollars, and she still felt the need to remove her music from Spotify, because it was hurting her music sales and she thinks "there should be an inherent value placed on art". The inherent value of art should be in the creation of it, but can be in having other people appreciate it. Feeling that it should also have a monetary value screams of greed to me. Maybe artists should realize that the days of make a billion dollars is over. That being a creative type won't make you millionaire. The money is now in creating a fanbase, that will come to your concerts, buy your merchandise, physical albums and hell, maybe even donate a fund to see said album get created. God forbid, they may have to find satisfaction in simply having people appreciate their creations.

It's not like these people are destitute. If you work very hard, and the right breaks come your way, you can make a living off of making music. Sorry that it won't be millions of dollars. That same effort and you can make a million dollars off commission on a sale at some hedge fund, if the money is that important.

(01-07-2015 09:34 PM)bacon Wrote:  I am curious what that book had to say about film which has seen a dearth of creativity in recent years. Every other film is either a remake or a sequel. Its such a waste since the creative potential is out there for movies to be original and unique but it seems studios would rather go with a safe bet than take a chance with a creative and different film instead of the same shit year after year.

Every other MAJOR film backed by a COMPANY with a BOARD and STOCKHOLDERS is a remake or a sequel. That is business. Those movies rake in the dough, and those people at the top are trying to make MONEY. People won't go out in droves to see (x) (<---Not a big movie guy, but this is where some recent great indie would go), so you're not going to see a big push behind those movies. Creative and different films are out there. Also, let's be real, 2013 wasn't that long ago, and was absolutely ridiculous in terms of great films that were mainstream. Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle, Captain Phillips and Dallas Buyers Club just to name a few.

I think the problem is that people get frustrated when they see the stuff they like isn't popular. That's the only reason I can come up with to understand a mindset that's not happy with how amazing our creative culture is at this point in time. Either that, or you're old, and everything that happened to you when you were young is going to be better than it is now.

Post: #5

I will get into a wider debate later on in the thread (once I have finished the book).

But for now - I just want to add some more info from the book. So - that I can share the perspective of the author with those who may not read this book.

First of all - let's look at the newspaper industry. The interesting thing is that the final nail in the coffin of their business was the internet.

But the coffin itself was built by the corporate restructuring that most US newspapers underwent in the MID 90's. Wall Street became attracted to the outsized profits of newspapers (which back then were around 30%), and once they took control of the papers they wanted to return more of the value to the shareholders.

This resulted in massive cutbacks and job losses in the newspaper industry. All in the name of further increasing margins.

The move to the internet was the killer blow to an industry that was already on the ropes thanks to their dance with Wall Street. The affects of the internet have been stunning.

The average newspaper reader was worth $539 a year in advertising revenue. And the average online newspaper reader is worth just $26. Those numbers tell you everything.

Let's move on to Spotify. You need 4 million plays a month in order take home royalties equal to what you would get in a minimum wage job.

Four Million.

Good luck with that one, boys.

And as for the wider crisis across the cultural industries - I think we are seeing a large amount of schadenfraude. I think people are secretly warmed by the idea that a lot of these people are now suffering.

It is an easy trap to fall into - and I am guilty of it myself. When you actively hate 99% of the music that is made - it is quite nice to see shitty Indie bands struggling as opposed to making millions selling their crappy records.

So - there really are no easy conclusions here. All I want to do is to bring attention to a book which is shining a light on - what I feel - is the most important issue facing our generation.

The very idea of culture and art is also one which has being under constant attack from the very custodians who were supposed to be preserving it. Just dig up a textbook and try and make your way through the muddy swamps of post-colonialism, feminism, deconstruction, structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, post-modernism, 'death of the author' and the very idea that judging any art smuggles in all types of genderist (and colonial) biases.

This has lead to a free for all when it comes to people wanting to define Art (or Culure) in any damn way they want. And as this has taken place - those on the right have seen no good reasons why the values of culture (which apparently have being deconstructed away) should trump the values of free-market economics.

And speaking of economics - this debate brings to mind an old urban legend, and how it fits in with the Marxist analysis of economic value.

First the urban legend:

Quote:Nikola Tesla visited Henry Ford at his factory, which was having some kind of difficulty. Ford asked Tesla if he could help identify the problem area. Tesla walked up to a wall of boilerplate and made a small X in chalk on one of the plates. Ford was thrilled, and told him to send an invoice.

The bill arrived, for $10,000. Ford asked for a breakdown. Tesla sent another invoice, indicating a $1 charge for marking the wall with an X, and $9,999 for knowing where to put it.

With this story in mind - let's look at how Marx pictured economic value. The conclusion he came to (I will save you the thousands of pages of argument) is that human labor is the basis of all economic value.

And - I wonder if the internet is leading people adopt this Marxist mindset as well? Since in a world where endless knowledge is just a google search away, the idea of charging a premium for knowledge (and by extension creativity) is becoming defunct.

As a result of this. I sense a mood in which people expect everyone to work equally hard in their jobs. And the idea that some people can charge more for such intangibles as talent, knowledge and creativity is one that no longer fits into our 'Everyone is equal' society...

It is hardly surprising that Marx crops up in this debate. Since he is the only true philosopher that Economics has produced. Everybody else in economics wanted to use economics to solve problems. Whereas Marx was much more interested in analyzing the fundamental concepts of economics itself.

We once lived in a society where people thought it reasonable to charge a high premium for knowing "where to mark the X".

As for the future? As my Magic 8 Ball used to say...

Post: #6

I will pick this up. Thanks for the heads up

Post: #7

Bought this last week. Looking forward to reading.

Post: #8

Here's a pretty good article on the subject at hand.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/01/creative..._is_a_lie/

Things like this have affected me. I have my gear and all but with the exception of my effects pedals which i'm keeping for nostalgic reasons, i'm selling my basses as i've figured that why bother? I know i can form a band and we will get over but we will never make enough money to justify the time, effort, and sacrifice involved in such a venture.

Post: #9

This book gets better and better the further it goes on.

An interesting point the author just made is the way in which middle class tastes have changed.

40 years ago - people were interested in experiencing the best art from around the world.

Today they are obsessed with eating the finest food from around the world.

Foodism has risen at the same time that a mass interest in serious culture has declined.

People now discuss food the way they used to discuss the latest literary sensation.

Post: #10

(01-08-2015 09:26 PM)Plato Wrote:  This book gets better and better the further it goes on.

An interesting point the author just made is the way in which middle class tastes have changed.

40 years ago - people were interested in experiencing the best art from around the world.

Today they are obsessed with eating the finest food from around the world.

Foodism has risen at the same time that a mass interest in serious culture has declined.

People now discuss food the way they used to discuss the latest literary sensation.

I'll pick this book up the next time i'm around Union Square.

Post: #11

It is one of those books - where the guy has literally sat down and read 50 books in this area. And then pulled out the most important points to help produce his book.

There is a lot of quoting from other books.

So - it has a slightly different feel to most books. Almost like a long blog post or something?

Post: #12

removed

Post: #13

(01-09-2015 01:20 PM)456 Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 07:21 PM)JustlookingForAGoodTime Wrote:  Here's a pretty good article on the subject at hand.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/01/creative..._is_a_lie/

Things like this have affected me. I have my gear and all but with the exception of my effects pedals which i'm keeping for nostalgic reasons, i'm selling my basses as i've figured that why bother? I know i can form a band and we will get over but we will never make enough money to justify the time, effort, and sacrifice involved in such a venture.

What model basses are you selling? (I'm in NYC as well, if that's the Union Sq. you referred to.)

Last two i have are a Dean Metalman Z and a Rouge LX 406 6 string. Both with gig bags. And you are correct on Union Square as i'm right across the river in Hudson county. Really feel bad about getting rid of them but the last few years have just destroyed my me as far as enthusiasm for music as a whole just seeing who and what makes it huge and what is shut out. It's to the point that i can't tolerate listening to any pop radio station and i'm almost exclusively searching out and hearing stuff when when i was fully into the scene as a fan and bandmember.

Post: #14

I finished the book.

Excellent read. I cannot do justice to the number of important ideas this book contains.

An interesting theme towards the end of the book is the hollowing out of the middle of the creative industries.

If you want to make big money making blockbuster movies or pop hits for an established act. Then it is still viable.

And - thanks to cheap digital technology - anyone can now make a no-budget movie, record an album, start a blog or self publish a book. You
won't make much money - but it is viable. The danger is in conflating the two and falling for the utopian idea that anyone can make it big in today's creative industries.

Sadly that is no longer the case. The middle of the creative industry is being hollowed out due to the pressures from above and below.

The majority of the cake used to reside in the middle. Now the majority of the cake is shared out amongst the top tier. With a few crumbs for the bottom to fight over. Often in the form of reality TV shows in which desperate artists fight for the chance of a shot at the big time. Or a viral YouTube video which might lead to being spotted by those at the top.

Even giant figures like Steven Spielberg and Stephen Soderbergh (who recently retired from making movies) are feeling the commercial heat when they try and fund a movie which will not be another formulaic blockbuster.

As such - we have moved into a culture where there is no longer a common currency in our appreciation of culture beyond the latest giant blockbuster hit in music, books and film. Indeed - most coverage of culture is purely focused on a winner-takes-all mentality, in which the reporting is about the money the latest superstar has earned.

This can ultimately be traced back to the companies no longer being owned by wealthy patrons who are passionate about art. Instead they are owned by stockholders who only care about the next quarterly statement.

And above it all is a state-less coterie of the super rich which no longer identifies with any country (or city), and is only focused on the frictionless accumulation of more capital. As such - they are only looking for hits that can transcend all barriers and make the most profit in our globalized world.