I'm imagining three ways forward for artists, critics, and patrons.
The first is for everyone involved to professionalize their work using sensible industrial standards, e.g. generous contracts, prompt timetables, clear communication, fair compensation, etc. Call it the Nordic model.
The second is for the connection between money and art to be severed as completely as possible. We can imagine with the latter option that the remaining artists are either independently wealthy (fine, but also likely responsible for a lot of boring art), members of the working poor who make art that is distributed mostly locally, or those who can persuade rich people to bankroll them. Call it the feudal system.
The third, and the least explored, is more anarchic. Shifting and overlapping groups of artists associated by affinity, geography, age, ethnicity pooling resources in a project-oriented way. More art co-ops, share houses, squats. Temporary online networks that then vanish. Crowdfunding (a.k.a. project-oriented mutual aid). Artists whose aim is to replace the institutions which once supported them not with similar structures with better standards and practices, but with new organizations which are dreamt, discussed, and determined by the artists themselves. Call it the dual power system.
I fear that power is so centralized, and that its aims are so crude, that reaching for the professionalization of the mid-20th century is doomed. And that the likeliest future is the feudal system. But I'm really hopeful more folks feel confident enough to experiment with the third way outlined above.
Thank you for this piece, Mesha. I'm glad you're sustaining your attention on and care for how artists can live a dignified life today.
The distiction between consumer reviews and professional criticism is so crucial. Customer reviews work for vacuum cleaners because we all agre on what they should do, but literature doesnt have a singular purpose. The way this essay connects the rise of paid Amazon reviews to the broader commodification of art really hits hard. When publishers treat books as products that need to maximize sales rather than as works with inherent artistic value, the entire ecosystem starts to collapse.
Please be very careful -- engaging (which will _inevitably_ end up negative) with these prospective (and also very sadly quite active!) thieves could/can cause them to pour AI-generated negative reviews all over your work. These people are _dangerously radioactive_. (10 TBq alpha emitters... ;) I strongly advise treating them as such -- i.e., _just sending any correspondence from them to junk mail_.
obsessed with elizabeth/your interaction
I'm imagining three ways forward for artists, critics, and patrons.
The first is for everyone involved to professionalize their work using sensible industrial standards, e.g. generous contracts, prompt timetables, clear communication, fair compensation, etc. Call it the Nordic model.
The second is for the connection between money and art to be severed as completely as possible. We can imagine with the latter option that the remaining artists are either independently wealthy (fine, but also likely responsible for a lot of boring art), members of the working poor who make art that is distributed mostly locally, or those who can persuade rich people to bankroll them. Call it the feudal system.
The third, and the least explored, is more anarchic. Shifting and overlapping groups of artists associated by affinity, geography, age, ethnicity pooling resources in a project-oriented way. More art co-ops, share houses, squats. Temporary online networks that then vanish. Crowdfunding (a.k.a. project-oriented mutual aid). Artists whose aim is to replace the institutions which once supported them not with similar structures with better standards and practices, but with new organizations which are dreamt, discussed, and determined by the artists themselves. Call it the dual power system.
I fear that power is so centralized, and that its aims are so crude, that reaching for the professionalization of the mid-20th century is doomed. And that the likeliest future is the feudal system. But I'm really hopeful more folks feel confident enough to experiment with the third way outlined above.
Thank you for this piece, Mesha. I'm glad you're sustaining your attention on and care for how artists can live a dignified life today.
Thank you!
fuck amazon!!!
The distiction between consumer reviews and professional criticism is so crucial. Customer reviews work for vacuum cleaners because we all agre on what they should do, but literature doesnt have a singular purpose. The way this essay connects the rise of paid Amazon reviews to the broader commodification of art really hits hard. When publishers treat books as products that need to maximize sales rather than as works with inherent artistic value, the entire ecosystem starts to collapse.
Insane, bonkers, and so so cheap lmao. Reminds me of politicians selling out whole cities for like 3k.
Please be very careful -- engaging (which will _inevitably_ end up negative) with these prospective (and also very sadly quite active!) thieves could/can cause them to pour AI-generated negative reviews all over your work. These people are _dangerously radioactive_. (10 TBq alpha emitters... ;) I strongly advise treating them as such -- i.e., _just sending any correspondence from them to junk mail_.