What do you think?
Rate this book
Making Art in the Twenty-First Century: How Writers, Musicians, and Others are Earning a Living—or Trying to—in the Digital Age
A deeply researched warning about how the digital economy threatens artists' lives and work―the music, writing, and visual art that sustain our souls and societies―from an award-winning essayist and critic.
There are two stories you hear about earning a living as an artist in the digital age. One comes from Silicon Valley. There's never been a better time to be an artist, it goes. If you've got a laptop, you've got a recording studio. If you've got an iPhone, you've got a movie camera. And if production is cheap, distribution is free: it's called the Internet. Everyone's an artist; just tap your creativity and put your stuff out there.
The other comes from artists themselves. Sure, it goes, you can put your stuff out there, but who's going to pay you for it? Everyone is not an artist. Making art takes years of dedication, and that requires a means of support. If things don't change, a lot of art will cease to be sustainable.
So which account is true? Since people are still making a living as artists today, how are they managing to do it? William Deresiewicz, a leading critic of the arts and of contemporary culture, set out to answer those questions. Based on interviews with artists of all kinds, The Death of the Artist argues that we are in the midst of an epochal transformation. If artists were artisans in the Renaissance, bohemians in the nineteenth century, and professionals in the twentieth, a new paradigm is emerging in the digital age, one that is changing our fundamental ideas about the nature of art and the role of the artist in society.
There are two stories you hear about earning a living as an artist in the digital age. One comes from Silicon Valley. There's never been a better time to be an artist, it goes. If you've got a laptop, you've got a recording studio. If you've got an iPhone, you've got a movie camera. And if production is cheap, distribution is free: it's called the Internet. Everyone's an artist; just tap your creativity and put your stuff out there.
The other comes from artists themselves. Sure, it goes, you can put your stuff out there, but who's going to pay you for it? Everyone is not an artist. Making art takes years of dedication, and that requires a means of support. If things don't change, a lot of art will cease to be sustainable.
So which account is true? Since people are still making a living as artists today, how are they managing to do it? William Deresiewicz, a leading critic of the arts and of contemporary culture, set out to answer those questions. Based on interviews with artists of all kinds, The Death of the Artist argues that we are in the midst of an epochal transformation. If artists were artisans in the Renaissance, bohemians in the nineteenth century, and professionals in the twentieth, a new paradigm is emerging in the digital age, one that is changing our fundamental ideas about the nature of art and the role of the artist in society.
353 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 28, 2020
140 people are currently reading
3845 people want to read
About the author
William Deresiewicz
14 books268 followersWilliam Deresiewicz was an associate professor of English at Yale University until 2008 and is a widely published book critic. His reviews and essays have appeared in The New York Times, The New Republic, The Nation, Bookforum, and The American Scholar. He was nominated for National Magazine awards in 2008 and 2009 and the National Book Critics Circle's Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing in 2010.
Wlliam Deresiewicz is an award-winning essayist and critic, a frequent college speaker, and the best-selling author of Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life. He taught English at Yale and Columbia before becoming a full-time writer in 2008.
Wlliam Deresiewicz is an award-winning essayist and critic, a frequent college speaker, and the best-selling author of Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life. He taught English at Yale and Columbia before becoming a full-time writer in 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 131 reviews
April 19, 2021
An interesting book that does a nice job of exploring the financial side of art and how the behaviors of big tech companies disadvantage artists. I appreciated how William Deresiewicz writes with depth about the relationship between art and money, including how folks often do not like associating the two even though they are bound up with one another. He includes several interviews which provide a more human quality to his argument; it felt humbling and real to read about artists from several different genres/mediums (e.g., writers, filmmakers, musicians) talk about their journeys. The book is necessarily bleak in terms of how artists are struggling financially – which I’ve read some articles about how it’s gotten way worse during COVID too, ugh – and how big tech exploits artists while underpaying them. Deresiewicz provides reasonable action steps such as limiting the control that big tech and billionaires have on artists and implementing policies to protect and restore the middle class.
I have a couple of constructive critiques I wanted to raise about this book in relation to its interviewing methods and its lack of discussion about race, racism, and related topics. First, while I appreciated the inclusion of interviews, I felt confused about Deresiewicz’s selection method for his interviewees. How did he choose who to reach out to and how did he choose whose narratives would be shared in the final manuscript? While I recall reading the journey of one Black artist, the majority of interviewees appeared to be white, which should have at least been noted as a limitation. I would’ve appreciated a little more discussion on how tech has either expanded access to art for people of color or further marginalized them. Also, at one point Deresiewicz makes the comment that women and people of color were, and “may be” still underrepresented in the arts (I think he was referring to writing/books.) I found this statement egregious in its naivete given that a quick Google search would have revealed several articles, narratives, and statistics about the racism experienced by people of color in the publishing industry, such as this article that focuses on Black folks’ experience.
Overall, a good book that I’d recommend for those who are interested in art and how capitalism affects artists’ experiences, as long as you take into account the above caveats. Reading this book helped me feel more secure in my blog and to understand more of what I can do to support artists, which I feel grateful for.
I have a couple of constructive critiques I wanted to raise about this book in relation to its interviewing methods and its lack of discussion about race, racism, and related topics. First, while I appreciated the inclusion of interviews, I felt confused about Deresiewicz’s selection method for his interviewees. How did he choose who to reach out to and how did he choose whose narratives would be shared in the final manuscript? While I recall reading the journey of one Black artist, the majority of interviewees appeared to be white, which should have at least been noted as a limitation. I would’ve appreciated a little more discussion on how tech has either expanded access to art for people of color or further marginalized them. Also, at one point Deresiewicz makes the comment that women and people of color were, and “may be” still underrepresented in the arts (I think he was referring to writing/books.) I found this statement egregious in its naivete given that a quick Google search would have revealed several articles, narratives, and statistics about the racism experienced by people of color in the publishing industry, such as this article that focuses on Black folks’ experience.
Overall, a good book that I’d recommend for those who are interested in art and how capitalism affects artists’ experiences, as long as you take into account the above caveats. Reading this book helped me feel more secure in my blog and to understand more of what I can do to support artists, which I feel grateful for.
September 9, 2020
another lifetime ago, when i was a sophomore at yale, there was a buzz about a young english professor named william deresiewicz. he was known for being brilliant, insightful, often funny, sometimes acerbic, and yet also earnest and carrying. during the many semesters in which he slashed my essays into ribbons before teaching me how to do it all, write it all better, i learned that the rumors were true. this latest book is bill at his best: witty, perspicacious, earnest, engaging. for anyone who cares about the arts, this is a vital read. bill thoughtfully examines how the changes in technology and society created a new and hostile environment for artists of all flavors. while you might not always agree with bill's arguments, i think you'll find his presentation of the facts and the forces at play (ranging from amazon to spotify to digital piracy) fair, engaging, and undeniable.
September 15, 2020
This book should be required reading for everyone who is an artist or creator of any kind, in any medium, and by everyone who enjoys art, music, writing or any other kind of creative endeavor -- which is basically everyone. It is a truly important book, filled with truth. Often disturbing truth, but truth that needs to be known. Technology is no friend to the arts, no matter what big tech tells us.
Read this book and share it with everyone you know!
Read this book and share it with everyone you know!
May 28, 2021
This is the most depressing book if you're an artist, and it is also absolutely critical to read. Many things I've felt, thought, experienced were addressed in these pages, and the context, while sometimes disappointing (or worse) helped me to understand some conflicts I feel when considering life as a writer. I felt less lonely about many of these occurrences as a result of reading, even if the odds of living as a writer (or any kind of artist) feel obscenely stacked against us. The roles that big tech has played was illuminating, scary, and ultimately informative. "...for most artists, once they've reached a certain point in life, success is defined as just continuing to be an artist."
January 12, 2022
Five stars, not necessarily because I agree with all of the arguments that Deresiewicz proposes in the book, but because this book contained some of the best nonfiction writing I've read. It's a hefty book, but thanks to the flow of his writing, it was really accessible. Even the chapters in which he talks about the more abstract questions ("what is art" is an actual question posed) come off as informed but not pretentious, which I appreciated. It's one thing to mourn the "death of the artist" and another to ground that supposed grief in context, and as far as research goes, the book worked well, even with such a doomsday title.
I particularly liked the throughline of techno-utopianism that he included throughout the course of the book – the evolution of the term "artist" to "creator," the ways that the market economy has commodified art, turned it into a product or a usable good. There was a fair amount of crossover between this book and Josef Pieper's book "Leisure," in addition to Makoto Fujimura's "Art and Faith," which I appreciated. If we were to look even further into the philosophical and religious realms, Tara Isabella Burton's book "Strange Rites," particularly the chapter on the god of techno-utopianism, could be brought into conversation.
A few notes: Sometimes the organization of the book confused me, and I don't really understand why the section about art history was at the end. That was the section where a lot of the "what is art" questions were asked, and I think it would've been helpful to understand the history at the beginning. Additionally, the last few chapters felt a little disjointed – hopping from art schools to piracy was a bit of a switch – so I wonder if the overall narrative could have been made a bit smoother.
Furthermore – and perhaps this is just my own vibe – I don't think the author ever specified that the arts scene that he was talking about was exclusively in the United States. I also felt like there was a slight tendency to over-romanticize the past –– for example, the author spent a fair amount of time espousing the virtues of bohemia, and while I'm sure the bohemian lifestyle was great for artists, I'm not entirely sure if we can say that one phase of the arts is entirely better than another. Still need to think about this some more, so I'll probably come back and edit lol.
I particularly liked the throughline of techno-utopianism that he included throughout the course of the book – the evolution of the term "artist" to "creator," the ways that the market economy has commodified art, turned it into a product or a usable good. There was a fair amount of crossover between this book and Josef Pieper's book "Leisure," in addition to Makoto Fujimura's "Art and Faith," which I appreciated. If we were to look even further into the philosophical and religious realms, Tara Isabella Burton's book "Strange Rites," particularly the chapter on the god of techno-utopianism, could be brought into conversation.
A few notes: Sometimes the organization of the book confused me, and I don't really understand why the section about art history was at the end. That was the section where a lot of the "what is art" questions were asked, and I think it would've been helpful to understand the history at the beginning. Additionally, the last few chapters felt a little disjointed – hopping from art schools to piracy was a bit of a switch – so I wonder if the overall narrative could have been made a bit smoother.
Furthermore – and perhaps this is just my own vibe – I don't think the author ever specified that the arts scene that he was talking about was exclusively in the United States. I also felt like there was a slight tendency to over-romanticize the past –– for example, the author spent a fair amount of time espousing the virtues of bohemia, and while I'm sure the bohemian lifestyle was great for artists, I'm not entirely sure if we can say that one phase of the arts is entirely better than another. Still need to think about this some more, so I'll probably come back and edit lol.
December 28, 2020
A great read that I think many artists and non-artists should read. Creative people do their art for a bunch of reasons and many include not for the money, as the book explains is extremely hard to do anyway. Instead of telling your baker friend to turn their passion into a bakery, just enjoy their work and appreciate them for doing it. Not every idea needs to or should be capitalized on.
It was interesting to be reminded how big tech has crippled the artist economy and how much accountability needs to be implemented in their practices. Thankfully things like patreon are starting to become normal since it's impossible to actually sell ones work for a decent price as the market has become saturated, then diluted by everyone participating on free platforms.
I don't like to play the victim but it's nice to hear validation for all the ways it is truly difficult to gain success - Not every artist is a marketer and those who are just good at their art shouldn't feel less than for not having the "whole package." I really hope things change soon. Once again, America has misplaced priorities.
"When artists assert that they ought to get paid and paid fairly, it’s because they want to make a living, not a killing. They want enough to keep doing it. Artists are like other professionals who work from a sense of commitment; teachers, social workers and to opt for satisfaction over wealth. They still have bills to pay. You don’t have to be doing something for the money to want to get money for doing it. You just have to be alive."
It was interesting to be reminded how big tech has crippled the artist economy and how much accountability needs to be implemented in their practices. Thankfully things like patreon are starting to become normal since it's impossible to actually sell ones work for a decent price as the market has become saturated, then diluted by everyone participating on free platforms.
I don't like to play the victim but it's nice to hear validation for all the ways it is truly difficult to gain success - Not every artist is a marketer and those who are just good at their art shouldn't feel less than for not having the "whole package." I really hope things change soon. Once again, America has misplaced priorities.
"When artists assert that they ought to get paid and paid fairly, it’s because they want to make a living, not a killing. They want enough to keep doing it. Artists are like other professionals who work from a sense of commitment; teachers, social workers and to opt for satisfaction over wealth. They still have bills to pay. You don’t have to be doing something for the money to want to get money for doing it. You just have to be alive."
August 22, 2021
this book was the death of my dreams
February 13, 2022
So the books hooks you up from the start with this aggressive “this system is wrong, we must change it!” tone, so you might be even excited in the beginning. But if you’re a creator of any kind, please, let me save your time.
All this book reflects is obvious reasons of modern day struggles in the art sphere: piracy, tech giants, availability of art producing tools for an average dude, competitiveness etc. The author points out events in history and gives names of certain companies, which changed the game. Spotify changed music industry, Amazon changed habits of those, who read and buy books and so on. But, well, didn’t you know that already? All the author does is really just whining for 500+ pages about the state of modern economy and its effect on creators. I can't help, but write this word "whining", because the problem of this book is that the author doesn’t try to give any remedy or at least try to imagine any solution-action which could help modern day artists. And this is sad (not the fact that creators have to struggle for recognition) for the amount of work put in this book . The author seems to really enjoy being trapped in this “everything is bad, someone do something” paradigm.
You might be thinking the author gives his own personal constructive solutions in the end of the book? Unfortunately - no. With all seriousnesness this is the overall conclusion he makes in the last chapter:
“The market should work properly. We have to heal the ecosystem and revive the middle class. We must break monopolies, raise the minimum wage, restore free education.”
Seriously? Was it really necessary to interview all those writers, musicians, artists, actors and write a book just to make this kind of conclusions in the last chapter? Why not try to risk and just imagine some real solution? It could make this book a bit more constructive. And more fun for sure.
All this book reflects is obvious reasons of modern day struggles in the art sphere: piracy, tech giants, availability of art producing tools for an average dude, competitiveness etc. The author points out events in history and gives names of certain companies, which changed the game. Spotify changed music industry, Amazon changed habits of those, who read and buy books and so on. But, well, didn’t you know that already? All the author does is really just whining for 500+ pages about the state of modern economy and its effect on creators. I can't help, but write this word "whining", because the problem of this book is that the author doesn’t try to give any remedy or at least try to imagine any solution-action which could help modern day artists. And this is sad (not the fact that creators have to struggle for recognition) for the amount of work put in this book . The author seems to really enjoy being trapped in this “everything is bad, someone do something” paradigm.
You might be thinking the author gives his own personal constructive solutions in the end of the book? Unfortunately - no. With all seriousnesness this is the overall conclusion he makes in the last chapter:
“The market should work properly. We have to heal the ecosystem and revive the middle class. We must break monopolies, raise the minimum wage, restore free education.”
Seriously? Was it really necessary to interview all those writers, musicians, artists, actors and write a book just to make this kind of conclusions in the last chapter? Why not try to risk and just imagine some real solution? It could make this book a bit more constructive. And more fun for sure.
September 15, 2020
It has become somewhat of a cliche to title books “The Death of (fill in the blank)” — but William Deresiewicz, in his new book The Death of the Artist, makes a compelling and intensively researched case that the age of the independent, self-supporting artist — whether musician, novelist, painter, actor or dancer — may indeed be coming to an end.
The reason? The growing inability of artists of all types to make a decent living, thanks to the overweening dominance of a handful of gatekeepers that control access to content and permit legalized piracy. These gatekeepers — Amazon, Apple, Google, YouTube, Facebook and Microsoft in particular — earn trillions, while the overwhelming majority of creative artists earn next to nothing, or nothing at all. It’s a system that, as Deresiewicz notes, “rewards the few and leaves the rest to fight for scraps. It’s virality or bust, stardom or oblivion.” The crowning insult? The pundits and pontificators who grease the wheels for this monopoly on creative expression by perpetuating the pernicious myth that “information wants to be free,” and the academics, from the security of their tenured positions, who propagate the even more damaging myth of the starving artist and “art for art’s sake.”
What I particularly liked about this essential volume is Deresiewicz’s bluntness, to wit: “If your business model depends on not paying people, it isn’t a business model; it’s a criminal conspiracy.” And (regarding the fatuous arguments against copyright that have arisen in the age of digitization): “It did not occur to anyone that it was acceptable to rip off people’s work until it was easy to do so. Arguments against copyright are ex post facto rationalizations of a system of organized theft.” And “Musicians work for love, writers will write for free, amateurs make better art: all of this is baby talk, make-believe.”
But The Death of the Artist is no polemic or screed — its real audience is not the legislators and opinion leaders who theoretically possess the power to break up big tech, but rather the young artists who are grappling with big tech’s dominance and their own dwindling prospects, and who desire ardently to “keep (their) soul intact and still make a living as an artist.” If you are an aspiring artist or know one, this book is absolutely essential reading.
The reason? The growing inability of artists of all types to make a decent living, thanks to the overweening dominance of a handful of gatekeepers that control access to content and permit legalized piracy. These gatekeepers — Amazon, Apple, Google, YouTube, Facebook and Microsoft in particular — earn trillions, while the overwhelming majority of creative artists earn next to nothing, or nothing at all. It’s a system that, as Deresiewicz notes, “rewards the few and leaves the rest to fight for scraps. It’s virality or bust, stardom or oblivion.” The crowning insult? The pundits and pontificators who grease the wheels for this monopoly on creative expression by perpetuating the pernicious myth that “information wants to be free,” and the academics, from the security of their tenured positions, who propagate the even more damaging myth of the starving artist and “art for art’s sake.”
What I particularly liked about this essential volume is Deresiewicz’s bluntness, to wit: “If your business model depends on not paying people, it isn’t a business model; it’s a criminal conspiracy.” And (regarding the fatuous arguments against copyright that have arisen in the age of digitization): “It did not occur to anyone that it was acceptable to rip off people’s work until it was easy to do so. Arguments against copyright are ex post facto rationalizations of a system of organized theft.” And “Musicians work for love, writers will write for free, amateurs make better art: all of this is baby talk, make-believe.”
But The Death of the Artist is no polemic or screed — its real audience is not the legislators and opinion leaders who theoretically possess the power to break up big tech, but rather the young artists who are grappling with big tech’s dominance and their own dwindling prospects, and who desire ardently to “keep (their) soul intact and still make a living as an artist.” If you are an aspiring artist or know one, this book is absolutely essential reading.
July 24, 2021
Almost immediately the author goes out of his way to ridicule any notion of communism but he is delusional enough to think that capitalism will be fine with a few tweeks. His whole book proves that it isn't so, but that is still his takeaway because he ruled out anything else but capitalist motivation within the first few pages and he did so while telling artists to suck it up and get over the idea of culture making for change. In Deresiewicz's view one must work the narrow monetary system, which is for the wealthy obviously. He is still high minded enough to lament the degradation of "pure art" though.
He says contradictory things like "if you're really good, there is more people than ever looking for talent" while later acknowledging that you will more than likely remain in obscurity without money and connections. It seems as if he is constantly trying to justify his worldview while also presenting the facts. The facts happen to be illustrative of broader society but I question if he is too insular to understand this, perhaps it would simply present too many contradictions to hurdle.
It is telling that his pet topic is internet piracy. Of course the problem has been remedied by those who were always gonna get theirs, ie corporate firms and financiers, but for small time artists it's a different story because they have weak leverage in streaming and distribution. So, it is a real problem, but Deresiewicz takes all that blame, the way that streamers and media companies have throttled entertainment and all media into monopolies and then blames that on the average person playing something on youtube. Great economic analysis.
He says contradictory things like "if you're really good, there is more people than ever looking for talent" while later acknowledging that you will more than likely remain in obscurity without money and connections. It seems as if he is constantly trying to justify his worldview while also presenting the facts. The facts happen to be illustrative of broader society but I question if he is too insular to understand this, perhaps it would simply present too many contradictions to hurdle.
It is telling that his pet topic is internet piracy. Of course the problem has been remedied by those who were always gonna get theirs, ie corporate firms and financiers, but for small time artists it's a different story because they have weak leverage in streaming and distribution. So, it is a real problem, but Deresiewicz takes all that blame, the way that streamers and media companies have throttled entertainment and all media into monopolies and then blames that on the average person playing something on youtube. Great economic analysis.
October 11, 2020
Essayist and critic Deresiewicz explores all the new ways in which artists can starve in the 21st century. Drawing from 140+ interviews, he does an excellent job of describing the situation in the artists’ own words, but his own biases and assumptions get in the way of truly understanding it.
I have my own biases, but I think he should be giving a lot more attention to America’s ridiculous inequalities and lack of proper health care than the fine details of current copyright law. To his credit, he brings up all three problems (and several more besides), but I think he fails to fully appreciate how many problems would be alleviated by universal health care and education funding.
I have my own biases, but I think he should be giving a lot more attention to America’s ridiculous inequalities and lack of proper health care than the fine details of current copyright law. To his credit, he brings up all three problems (and several more besides), but I think he fails to fully appreciate how many problems would be alleviated by universal health care and education funding.
December 29, 2022
Цікава книга про сучасний стан мистецтва. Основна увага приділена США, проте аналогії з Україною провести можна, що й не дивно, зважаючи на глобалізацію.
July 13, 2021
Yeah it was alright. My dad recced this to me--considering I'm "trying to be an Artist" now--and he cited this book as an influence for him to avoid Amazon etc. forever.
Alright, sure.
It was...bleak, to say the least. I'm curious about the author's choice for his interview subjects, and there seemed to be some issues with bias in a lot of the chapters. A lot of his analysis stank of white privilege.
I'm not a fan--personally that is--of an art critic--someone who contributes nothing but unwarranted opinion--deciding to throw his hat into the ring where no one's asked for it. Typical of a critic, I suppose.
A lot of this book talks about the growing divide between haves and have-nots, and talks about the death of the middle-class. In the wrap-up, his suggestion is to try and revive the middle-class.
For context, I'm hoping to be a published fantasy author. The one chapter that felt relevant naturally was on writing--and the focus seemed to be on essayists, poets, short story writers, and magazine authors. Not really what I'm trying to do. I've done my own research prior to reading this book and it didn't quite offer anything new for me here--other than "being an Author is Hard!"
So yeah, 3/5 stars. It was fine, but nothing that I'd say was life changing or revolutionary. I'm certainly glad I didn't buy this and borrowed it from my dad--which I've realised the author probably wouldn't be a fan of. Whoops! Sorry! Perhaps he should've tried to upload his stuff to Wattpad first.
Alright, sure.
It was...bleak, to say the least. I'm curious about the author's choice for his interview subjects, and there seemed to be some issues with bias in a lot of the chapters. A lot of his analysis stank of white privilege.
I'm not a fan--personally that is--of an art critic--someone who contributes nothing but unwarranted opinion--deciding to throw his hat into the ring where no one's asked for it. Typical of a critic, I suppose.
A lot of this book talks about the growing divide between haves and have-nots, and talks about the death of the middle-class. In the wrap-up, his suggestion is to try and revive the middle-class.
For context, I'm hoping to be a published fantasy author. The one chapter that felt relevant naturally was on writing--and the focus seemed to be on essayists, poets, short story writers, and magazine authors. Not really what I'm trying to do. I've done my own research prior to reading this book and it didn't quite offer anything new for me here--other than "being an Author is Hard!"
So yeah, 3/5 stars. It was fine, but nothing that I'd say was life changing or revolutionary. I'm certainly glad I didn't buy this and borrowed it from my dad--which I've realised the author probably wouldn't be a fan of. Whoops! Sorry! Perhaps he should've tried to upload his stuff to Wattpad first.
May 10, 2021
William Deresiewicz has an uncanny way of hitting me right where I live. His last book was about higher education, and this one is about the difficulty of trying to make a living doing creative work. Naturally, the chapter on writing was the one that got me taking notes, but musicians and actors have it pretty bad, too, and visual artists have it worst of all. The thesis of the book is that thanks to the Internet, there are more ways of sharing your work than ever, but nobody is paying for it. Big Tech, as usual, is eating up everything.
Like with the last book, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the book until Deresiewicz made a point that got me angry. He took issue with the popular notion that “everyone is an artist.” He went on to qualify it in a way I can agree with: that everyone may have creative impulses and talents, but not everyone puts in the work of becoming an artist. Then he goes on to say we’d be better off consuming more art than attempting it to produce it ourselves. Excuse me? The only way to become an artist is to practice, and that is done by attempting to produce. How dare he discourage me from trying! The business side of his message was discouraging enough, but I knew that was coming. I actually appreciate a warning about the challenges I face. But telling me not to bother – that lost him a star.
Like with the last book, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the book until Deresiewicz made a point that got me angry. He took issue with the popular notion that “everyone is an artist.” He went on to qualify it in a way I can agree with: that everyone may have creative impulses and talents, but not everyone puts in the work of becoming an artist. Then he goes on to say we’d be better off consuming more art than attempting it to produce it ourselves. Excuse me? The only way to become an artist is to practice, and that is done by attempting to produce. How dare he discourage me from trying! The business side of his message was discouraging enough, but I knew that was coming. I actually appreciate a warning about the challenges I face. But telling me not to bother – that lost him a star.
March 2, 2024
I first heard of this book when two of my Half Price Books coworkers, one an author and one a musician, were talking about it. I was too awkward to ask them about it at the time, but later saw this referenced somewhere else online.
This gave me a LOT to think about. Not sure I agreed with all of his points, and in the sections that focused on writing, he had a clear bias against genre fiction (although he was respectful enough towards it). I would have loved more focus on writing, but there was enough to keep me happy and I can't fault a book for not being what I want it to be, if it succeeds at what it does.
There were also several parts that I would be curious to see updated for 2024 - especially in regards to AI.
Overall, I'm very glad I read this. It doesn't necessarily change what I'll do, but it’s valudating to read about.
Unorganized thoughts and quotes:
"The creation of art cannot be automated, nor can technology make the process more efficient"
Not sure this is 100% true anymore - what to do about AI?
Also talks about certain cities that are expensive that artists have to live in - is that changed with covid and remote work?
Talks about how TV actually has a "middle class" now - I'd be super curious to hear an update now that Netflix cancels all their popular shows after 2 or 3 seasons, and how that looks now.
"... the amount of time authors spend on marketing increased by 59% from 2009 to 2015, according to a survey by the Author's Guild."
"It takes a lot of confidence to doubt yourself that much."
Im thinking about the hills I would die on. For example, one artist refused to license her music for a car commercial even though it would set her up to a much more manageable place in life.
The hill I'll die on is I want to get paid. I'm not submitting my work to magazine where the prize is free copies.
Thats one reason why freelance doesn't interest me - I don't want to be paid less than I'm worth in order to build my name (especially in nonfiction)
Theres a bit of an assumtion that YA and genre is considered "less than", I would have appreciated more of those types of writers being showcased, but I do understand that there are a LOT of types of writers to cover and we did get one (tho his section was framed as a he should expect fo be embarrassed)
"So people make art for identity groups, identity niches - which reinforces the importance, the existence, of identity groups. We learn to think of ourselves in those terms - as members of a team, of a little 'us' against a great big 'them' - because the culture is telling us to, and the culture is telling us to because the market is telling it to."
Interesting point, but v against genre fiction (earlier categorized literary fiction as fiction that has no genre), which I disagree with (understand mystery, romance, etc is different from fantasy) (also, I think I disagree with the idea that people are stuck so much to a certain brand? Look at Sanderson's kickstarters - very different type of stories than he's known for, and those were met with lots of praise)
Rejecting universal artisthood - NOT everyone is an artist. In some ways I agree, but that doesn't mean don't 'spend time on mediocre art' if that what makes you happy. I think what is needed is honesty in what being an artist is like, and ask if people really want that.
Piracy - google and piracy sites, through ads, make money, but creators don't
Studies show piracy does impact sales.
"The movies that are most affected are the ones that don’t get made. If you lose money on your film, you're much less likely to make the next one." Maggie Stiefvater has posted about this a lot as well.
Little indie films, that won't have a theatrical release, are hurt the worst by piracy - piracy hurts diversity.
"People who think piracy is fine, whether they are advocates or simple users, are like little kids who think that food just magically appears on their plate, without their parents having to work for it. It's time they grew up."
Cool to see organizations at the end and what their goals are - wanted to see more writing ones, obviously
"I've been told that fans will 'find a way' to support the artists they love, but you don't need to 'find' a way, because its already right there in front of you. Just pay for their ---damn stuff."
In summary: it's getting easier to make and put your stuff out there, but so much harder to get paid for what you make. And due to the ease of the first part, publisher/labels/etc are expecting you, the creator, to front the cost and the risk.
This gave me a LOT to think about. Not sure I agreed with all of his points, and in the sections that focused on writing, he had a clear bias against genre fiction (although he was respectful enough towards it). I would have loved more focus on writing, but there was enough to keep me happy and I can't fault a book for not being what I want it to be, if it succeeds at what it does.
There were also several parts that I would be curious to see updated for 2024 - especially in regards to AI.
Overall, I'm very glad I read this. It doesn't necessarily change what I'll do, but it’s valudating to read about.
Unorganized thoughts and quotes:
"The creation of art cannot be automated, nor can technology make the process more efficient"
Not sure this is 100% true anymore - what to do about AI?
Also talks about certain cities that are expensive that artists have to live in - is that changed with covid and remote work?
Talks about how TV actually has a "middle class" now - I'd be super curious to hear an update now that Netflix cancels all their popular shows after 2 or 3 seasons, and how that looks now.
"... the amount of time authors spend on marketing increased by 59% from 2009 to 2015, according to a survey by the Author's Guild."
"It takes a lot of confidence to doubt yourself that much."
Im thinking about the hills I would die on. For example, one artist refused to license her music for a car commercial even though it would set her up to a much more manageable place in life.
The hill I'll die on is I want to get paid. I'm not submitting my work to magazine where the prize is free copies.
Thats one reason why freelance doesn't interest me - I don't want to be paid less than I'm worth in order to build my name (especially in nonfiction)
Theres a bit of an assumtion that YA and genre is considered "less than", I would have appreciated more of those types of writers being showcased, but I do understand that there are a LOT of types of writers to cover and we did get one (tho his section was framed as a he should expect fo be embarrassed)
"So people make art for identity groups, identity niches - which reinforces the importance, the existence, of identity groups. We learn to think of ourselves in those terms - as members of a team, of a little 'us' against a great big 'them' - because the culture is telling us to, and the culture is telling us to because the market is telling it to."
Interesting point, but v against genre fiction (earlier categorized literary fiction as fiction that has no genre), which I disagree with (understand mystery, romance, etc is different from fantasy) (also, I think I disagree with the idea that people are stuck so much to a certain brand? Look at Sanderson's kickstarters - very different type of stories than he's known for, and those were met with lots of praise)
Rejecting universal artisthood - NOT everyone is an artist. In some ways I agree, but that doesn't mean don't 'spend time on mediocre art' if that what makes you happy. I think what is needed is honesty in what being an artist is like, and ask if people really want that.
Piracy - google and piracy sites, through ads, make money, but creators don't
Studies show piracy does impact sales.
"The movies that are most affected are the ones that don’t get made. If you lose money on your film, you're much less likely to make the next one." Maggie Stiefvater has posted about this a lot as well.
Little indie films, that won't have a theatrical release, are hurt the worst by piracy - piracy hurts diversity.
"People who think piracy is fine, whether they are advocates or simple users, are like little kids who think that food just magically appears on their plate, without their parents having to work for it. It's time they grew up."
Cool to see organizations at the end and what their goals are - wanted to see more writing ones, obviously
"I've been told that fans will 'find a way' to support the artists they love, but you don't need to 'find' a way, because its already right there in front of you. Just pay for their ---damn stuff."
In summary: it's getting easier to make and put your stuff out there, but so much harder to get paid for what you make. And due to the ease of the first part, publisher/labels/etc are expecting you, the creator, to front the cost and the risk.
March 31, 2023
Дуже сподобалась, раду прочитати тим, хто цікавиться теперішніми справами мистецтва і піратства.
June 28, 2020
*** I received on ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review ***
The Death of the Artist was an all-around solid nonfiction work about what has happened to make the lives of artists (music, TV, film, visual) even harder over the last two decades: piracy, demonetization, Big Tech. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Deresiewicz cites many example of how the "middle class" of art is dying, and concludes the book by offering thoughts on how artists and the larger population can fight back.
Something I found impressive about this book, is the seamless juxtaposition of statistics along side personal stories. It is well informed both by the number and by going and talking directly to the source, that is the artists themselves. The author well-frames unifying similarities facing the different industries, without sacrificing discussion of important differences between them.
Compared to some other nonfiction I've read in the past year, this book is well organized. I knew where it was going the whole time. The main points were laid out early in the book, then well reinforced the further I read. Probably my largest criticism is over-diligence. Each medium-specific chapter had at least six extended example narratives following an artist's personal story, which felt like a little overkill.
Deresiewicz isn't afraid to add a "fuck you" where necessary, for example, when rebuffing the attitude that piracy is OK. This is an appreciated touch that some author's might shy away from.
I came to this book, at least in part because I've been a huge music fan for so many years. If you're a fan of any of the Arts, you can't really go wrong reading this book to better inform yourself of the current landscape. Like me, you may have some idea of the kinds of things detailed here, but regardless it will almost certainly broaden your insight and perspective, and more importantly connect you to the perspective of those suffering most.
The Death of the Artist was an all-around solid nonfiction work about what has happened to make the lives of artists (music, TV, film, visual) even harder over the last two decades: piracy, demonetization, Big Tech. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Deresiewicz cites many example of how the "middle class" of art is dying, and concludes the book by offering thoughts on how artists and the larger population can fight back.
Something I found impressive about this book, is the seamless juxtaposition of statistics along side personal stories. It is well informed both by the number and by going and talking directly to the source, that is the artists themselves. The author well-frames unifying similarities facing the different industries, without sacrificing discussion of important differences between them.
Compared to some other nonfiction I've read in the past year, this book is well organized. I knew where it was going the whole time. The main points were laid out early in the book, then well reinforced the further I read. Probably my largest criticism is over-diligence. Each medium-specific chapter had at least six extended example narratives following an artist's personal story, which felt like a little overkill.
Deresiewicz isn't afraid to add a "fuck you" where necessary, for example, when rebuffing the attitude that piracy is OK. This is an appreciated touch that some author's might shy away from.
I came to this book, at least in part because I've been a huge music fan for so many years. If you're a fan of any of the Arts, you can't really go wrong reading this book to better inform yourself of the current landscape. Like me, you may have some idea of the kinds of things detailed here, but regardless it will almost certainly broaden your insight and perspective, and more importantly connect you to the perspective of those suffering most.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
February 20, 2021Giving up on this at 40%. It’s full of unflinching observations about how difficult it is to make even a shitty living as an artist in America in the 21st century, but it’s also steeped in a perspective of white privilege. Which it acknowledges, even as it others non-white artists in a completely clueless gross way. Thanks bro but nah.
September 23, 2020
Great points in the book about tech companies and how they have screwed up the world.
Read
June 15, 2021Man this book blew my mind.
March 1, 2023
As someone who grew up in a family of artists, I have been wanting to read this book for awhile, and overall it is one of the most comprehensive arguments in favor of artists in our changing economy. The author argues, "The difference now [from struggling artists of the past] is that it's hard even if you do find success," with very compelling evidence. In this book, one will see pretty much every kind of art tackled in its own right in great detail, so nearly every artist will find themself represented and ambitious creative youth should take the time to read their chapter.
Capitalism allowed for the rise of the modern artist, the author argues. Artists don't automatically deserve society's support, if they aren't making art people want. Though the book admits that "selling out" is a myth designed to keep artists poor, the author also highlights a lot of very bad financial decisions by artists, seemingly justifying them simply because the author took the time for the interview. As a somewhat elitist critic himself, the author argues that critics can help to allow artists to break through who aren't performing well commercially, which is one of a number of opinions likely to divide artists. Still, this is an important, fact-based book that echoes the right perspective at the right time.
The controversial thesis of the book is the idea that "Not everyone is an artist," and we must support a professional class of artists as a result. You have no right to be an artist, and the idea that everyone is an artist has been detrimental to the production of good art, the author argues. In this book — which debunks the justifications for piracy, analyzes the complexity and "affirmative action for the rich" of internships, and analyzes the balance between academia's sometime necessity and sometime worthlessness — we dive into the myth of the golden age of the amateur and discuss how to build a better artistic economy. Artists, read your section here.
Capitalism allowed for the rise of the modern artist, the author argues. Artists don't automatically deserve society's support, if they aren't making art people want. Though the book admits that "selling out" is a myth designed to keep artists poor, the author also highlights a lot of very bad financial decisions by artists, seemingly justifying them simply because the author took the time for the interview. As a somewhat elitist critic himself, the author argues that critics can help to allow artists to break through who aren't performing well commercially, which is one of a number of opinions likely to divide artists. Still, this is an important, fact-based book that echoes the right perspective at the right time.
The controversial thesis of the book is the idea that "Not everyone is an artist," and we must support a professional class of artists as a result. You have no right to be an artist, and the idea that everyone is an artist has been detrimental to the production of good art, the author argues. In this book — which debunks the justifications for piracy, analyzes the complexity and "affirmative action for the rich" of internships, and analyzes the balance between academia's sometime necessity and sometime worthlessness — we dive into the myth of the golden age of the amateur and discuss how to build a better artistic economy. Artists, read your section here.
March 24, 2025
Un libro extenso, con una enorme cantidad de ideas, ligeramente irregular, pero del que he disfrutado muchísimo.
Propone una aproximación muy sociológica, en ciertos momentos incluso etnográfica, al campo de la creación artística y al problema profundo de la extrema dificultad para mantener una carrera sostenible en lo financiero (incluso cuando se tiene éxito).
La base de esa aproximación son decenas y decenas de entrevistas con artistas de sectores culturales y creativos varios (muchos de ellos bastante conocidos en los entornos alternativos); especialmente la música, la literatura, las artes visuales y el cine/televisión.
El enfoque de Deresiewicz también es marcadamente económico, planteando análisis bastante claros sobre cómo se organiza la cadena de valor en esos sectores y cómo se ha ido reconfigurando con la salida y entrada de nuevos actores.
Una tesis central del libro es que, si las condiciones de vida y trabajo de los artistas son ahora peores que nunca antes, es porque la digitalización provocó una reorganización integral, en la que corporaciones tecnológicas —que antes habían tenido un papel secundario en el ecosistema del arte y que actúan de acuerdo a principios y valores que no se alinean con lo que habían sido sus reglas tradicionales— capturan valor a manos llenas, someten a un mayor estrés a los creadores fragmentando su capacidad de reacción conjunta y logran ocultar este problema de la vista del estado y de la opinión pública.
Es especialmente estimulante el análisis histórico que en cierto capítulo construye, cuando dice que el artista en Occidente ha atravesado cuatro fases asociadas a cuatro papeles: artesano (antes del XVIII), bohemio (finales del XIX - principios del XX), profesional (desde el 45 a los 90) y ahora productor (de la digitalización en adelante). La última está todavía abierta, está por ver hacia dónde conduce y se va poniendo aún más gris en los pocos años que han pasado desde que Deresiewicz escribió este libro.
9/10
Propone una aproximación muy sociológica, en ciertos momentos incluso etnográfica, al campo de la creación artística y al problema profundo de la extrema dificultad para mantener una carrera sostenible en lo financiero (incluso cuando se tiene éxito).
La base de esa aproximación son decenas y decenas de entrevistas con artistas de sectores culturales y creativos varios (muchos de ellos bastante conocidos en los entornos alternativos); especialmente la música, la literatura, las artes visuales y el cine/televisión.
El enfoque de Deresiewicz también es marcadamente económico, planteando análisis bastante claros sobre cómo se organiza la cadena de valor en esos sectores y cómo se ha ido reconfigurando con la salida y entrada de nuevos actores.
Una tesis central del libro es que, si las condiciones de vida y trabajo de los artistas son ahora peores que nunca antes, es porque la digitalización provocó una reorganización integral, en la que corporaciones tecnológicas —que antes habían tenido un papel secundario en el ecosistema del arte y que actúan de acuerdo a principios y valores que no se alinean con lo que habían sido sus reglas tradicionales— capturan valor a manos llenas, someten a un mayor estrés a los creadores fragmentando su capacidad de reacción conjunta y logran ocultar este problema de la vista del estado y de la opinión pública.
Es especialmente estimulante el análisis histórico que en cierto capítulo construye, cuando dice que el artista en Occidente ha atravesado cuatro fases asociadas a cuatro papeles: artesano (antes del XVIII), bohemio (finales del XIX - principios del XX), profesional (desde el 45 a los 90) y ahora productor (de la digitalización en adelante). La última está todavía abierta, está por ver hacia dónde conduce y se va poniendo aún más gris en los pocos años que han pasado desde que Deresiewicz escribió este libro.
9/10
March 20, 2024
As I kept saying in my status updates during the looooong time I was slogging through this, this book is depressing. A BIG BUMMER. And that's why it took me so long. Of course a lot of it is what we all already know, at least anyone that's been paying attention, especially if you're yourself any sort of creative person. But to have it all laid out in painstaking detail as this book does it is spiritually crushing.
I won't repeat any of it here. Just suffice to say that the book does a good job of showing through interviews and research that things really really suck for artists, writers, filmmakers, musicians, and other creators these days, and it's a recent phenomenon that's way worse than the standard "oh it's hard to be an artist", "starving artist" kind of narrative.
At the very end, Deresiewicz talks about what some are doing about it, which is somewhat uplifting. But in the end he admits that none of the activists and nonprofits and innovative people trying to make things better will really do much at the scale they're operating at, and that really the only way things will improve is if we FIX EVERYTHING. As Derek Jensen once said, "it's obvious what we need to do - change everything around us." The dismal state of affairs for artists is just a subset of the dismal state for EVERYONE except for the super rich, a situation brought about quite on purpose by the ruling class gradually but methodically over the last 40-50 years as neoliberalism has unacccidentally broken government and twisted the economy to serve only that 1%. We must undo all of that or die trying for there to be any hope of the 99% being free, much less the little sliver of "special people" that we call "artists".
I won't repeat any of it here. Just suffice to say that the book does a good job of showing through interviews and research that things really really suck for artists, writers, filmmakers, musicians, and other creators these days, and it's a recent phenomenon that's way worse than the standard "oh it's hard to be an artist", "starving artist" kind of narrative.
At the very end, Deresiewicz talks about what some are doing about it, which is somewhat uplifting. But in the end he admits that none of the activists and nonprofits and innovative people trying to make things better will really do much at the scale they're operating at, and that really the only way things will improve is if we FIX EVERYTHING. As Derek Jensen once said, "it's obvious what we need to do - change everything around us." The dismal state of affairs for artists is just a subset of the dismal state for EVERYONE except for the super rich, a situation brought about quite on purpose by the ruling class gradually but methodically over the last 40-50 years as neoliberalism has unacccidentally broken government and twisted the economy to serve only that 1%. We must undo all of that or die trying for there to be any hope of the 99% being free, much less the little sliver of "special people" that we call "artists".
January 18, 2021
I had received this book in exchange for a review, so imagine my chagrin when it literally said that publicity was nothing and respecting an artist meant paying for their work.
Oops.
But that was only the first of 300 pages of personalized roasting, and it would not be the only time I suffered at Deresiewicz’s hands.
His previous book, Excellent Sheep, had trampled all over my prolonged quarter life crisis as a bewildered elite college graduate. This one, directly speaking to both real artists and those who have been deceived into believing themselves to be such by Silicon Valley’s propaganda, shows us the harsh reality artists face today as they are increasingly cornered by rising living costs and the decreased financial feasibility.
Deresiewicz began the book by decrypting misleading assumptions promulgated by Big Tech companies who profit from content and data at the expense of the creators, and lo and behold, I had bought into the vast majority of them. Deresiewicz’s language is quick and witty, but its resounding truth made me wonder how on Earth I had never seen the art world the way he did. I knew artists were struggling and that many were balancing side jobs and social media engagement and rent and student debt, but obviously those we do know are the few who have succeeded. We never hear about the overwhelming majority.
This book is the product of countless investigations and interviews and it shows. I was often startled by not only statistics but also stories and interpretations, and while there are also parts with which I am less impressed, this is an informative read for both artists themselves and those who care about their maintenance and prosperity. Although I shut the book still confused about the definition and discernment of “real art” as opposed to creative dabbling, I feel so lucky to be a fan of a contemporary author who is still alive and to whose new works I can always look forward.
Oops.
But that was only the first of 300 pages of personalized roasting, and it would not be the only time I suffered at Deresiewicz’s hands.
His previous book, Excellent Sheep, had trampled all over my prolonged quarter life crisis as a bewildered elite college graduate. This one, directly speaking to both real artists and those who have been deceived into believing themselves to be such by Silicon Valley’s propaganda, shows us the harsh reality artists face today as they are increasingly cornered by rising living costs and the decreased financial feasibility.
Deresiewicz began the book by decrypting misleading assumptions promulgated by Big Tech companies who profit from content and data at the expense of the creators, and lo and behold, I had bought into the vast majority of them. Deresiewicz’s language is quick and witty, but its resounding truth made me wonder how on Earth I had never seen the art world the way he did. I knew artists were struggling and that many were balancing side jobs and social media engagement and rent and student debt, but obviously those we do know are the few who have succeeded. We never hear about the overwhelming majority.
This book is the product of countless investigations and interviews and it shows. I was often startled by not only statistics but also stories and interpretations, and while there are also parts with which I am less impressed, this is an informative read for both artists themselves and those who care about their maintenance and prosperity. Although I shut the book still confused about the definition and discernment of “real art” as opposed to creative dabbling, I feel so lucky to be a fan of a contemporary author who is still alive and to whose new works I can always look forward.
June 26, 2022
Holy smokes folks, support your local artists (and go give them a hug)
An excellent, comprehensive look at the current state of the arts economy. I’d be interested now to read a study about how these new economic/social conditions in the arts are shaping the content of the art itself - comparative studies of art then/now in light of this research.
An excellent, comprehensive look at the current state of the arts economy. I’d be interested now to read a study about how these new economic/social conditions in the arts are shaping the content of the art itself - comparative studies of art then/now in light of this research.
September 20, 2022
A pretty solid overview of the current state of artists amidst our culture, economy, and society. There isn't a lot that Deresiewicz can sugar coat and while I might disagree with some of his presumptions (I understand him to be a realist) - I can't help but admire his willingness to objectively look at the trends and give us the truth.
I did feel like the middle of the book dragged with all of the somewhat brief testimonies from various artists across the mediums, but otherwise, the beginning and ending were the strongest parts. A must read for any artist who dreams of "making it."
I did feel like the middle of the book dragged with all of the somewhat brief testimonies from various artists across the mediums, but otherwise, the beginning and ending were the strongest parts. A must read for any artist who dreams of "making it."
March 24, 2023
Truly a rough read for an artist. Can't say I learned anything new but would be a strong primer to the realities of the 2020 art world for any interested person outside the art world. Probably already needs a pandemic update.
April 4, 2022
Fin bog om strukturer og økonomi i kunst. Lidt for lang og ukonkret
Read
November 17, 2022truly doesn't really count because I got too depressed about this to finish reading it lmfao. But really good research done in the book.
November 8, 2023
Death of the middle-class artist. Tech & platform monopolies. Economic disparities.
“It’s not enough to practice your craft every day… you also need to practice networking, bookkeeping, watching trends.”
“The very tools that have made it so easy to create have contributed to the confusion of quality with mediocrity.”
“The less money there is in the arts overall, the more they become a rich kid’s game.”
“…the ongoing loss of the “middle-class” artist. The vast majority of people who try to become professional artists do not succeed; the vast majority of those who earn any money at all from their art earn tiny amounts. … [“Middle-class”] To pay for adequate housing, to afford reliable health care, to take a vacation every once in a while – rather than subsisting from check to check, forever on the brink of the financial abyss.” | “…there’s nothing left to shield you from the market [e.g., academic positions].”
“...the reason we find ourselves divided today into a myriad of micro-identities (or one of the reasons, at least) is that that is the way we are marketed to.”
“Piracy is an invisible crime. The movies that are most affected are the ones that don’t get made. … “It’s the little indie films like ours… where we’re totally dependent on the back end, that are most vulnerable.” And since the world of indie films… is much more representative than Hollywood, piracy also hurts diversity.”
“…it did not occur to anyone that it was acceptable to rip off people’s work until it was easy to do so [e.g., Napster].”
“The cheaper the content, the better for them [Silicon Valley and tech giants Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.], because they’re metering the flow – counting our clicks and selling the resulting data – and they want that flow to be as frictionless as possible.”
“The vast reserves of wealth at Silicon Valley’s disposal also enable it to undersell and undermine the competition. Again, we saw this with Amazon, which treats both books and video content as loss leaders, ways to sell Echos and subscriptions to Prime. … [Venture Capital] funding is what has allowed corporations like Amazon and Spotify (or, more obviously, Uber) to run at a loss for years on end. The model, invariable, is this: aggressively build market share with subsidized products or services (Uber still loses money on every ride); kill off rivals, including those in the existing industry that you’re “disrupting” (books, music, taxis); secure a monopoly.”
“Together with piracy… venture funding has created the feeling that content will and should be free, a feeling that has proved so damaging to the arts.”
“A number of organizations are simply trying to enable artists to operate in the market free from subservience to the likes of Facebook and Amazon. … CASH [Music], a non-profit, creates free, open-source digital tools. “Anything an artist needs… to connect directly with their audience on their own website”: a shopping cart, tour-date management, email-list management, etc.”
“The exchange evolved into OurGoods, “an online barter network for artists, designers”…
“Design thinking, [Amy] Whitaker says, is about getting from point A to point B, figuring out how to realize a predetermined goal. Art thinking is an open-ended, exploratory process in the course of which, she says, you “invent point B,” discovering your goal through the act of trying to reach it.”
► Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear by Elizabeth Gilbert – creativity, psychology, work
► Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke – art, doubt, loneliness
“It’s not enough to practice your craft every day… you also need to practice networking, bookkeeping, watching trends.”
“The very tools that have made it so easy to create have contributed to the confusion of quality with mediocrity.”
“The less money there is in the arts overall, the more they become a rich kid’s game.”
“…the ongoing loss of the “middle-class” artist. The vast majority of people who try to become professional artists do not succeed; the vast majority of those who earn any money at all from their art earn tiny amounts. … [“Middle-class”] To pay for adequate housing, to afford reliable health care, to take a vacation every once in a while – rather than subsisting from check to check, forever on the brink of the financial abyss.” | “…there’s nothing left to shield you from the market [e.g., academic positions].”
“...the reason we find ourselves divided today into a myriad of micro-identities (or one of the reasons, at least) is that that is the way we are marketed to.”
“Piracy is an invisible crime. The movies that are most affected are the ones that don’t get made. … “It’s the little indie films like ours… where we’re totally dependent on the back end, that are most vulnerable.” And since the world of indie films… is much more representative than Hollywood, piracy also hurts diversity.”
“…it did not occur to anyone that it was acceptable to rip off people’s work until it was easy to do so [e.g., Napster].”
“The cheaper the content, the better for them [Silicon Valley and tech giants Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.], because they’re metering the flow – counting our clicks and selling the resulting data – and they want that flow to be as frictionless as possible.”
“The vast reserves of wealth at Silicon Valley’s disposal also enable it to undersell and undermine the competition. Again, we saw this with Amazon, which treats both books and video content as loss leaders, ways to sell Echos and subscriptions to Prime. … [Venture Capital] funding is what has allowed corporations like Amazon and Spotify (or, more obviously, Uber) to run at a loss for years on end. The model, invariable, is this: aggressively build market share with subsidized products or services (Uber still loses money on every ride); kill off rivals, including those in the existing industry that you’re “disrupting” (books, music, taxis); secure a monopoly.”
“Together with piracy… venture funding has created the feeling that content will and should be free, a feeling that has proved so damaging to the arts.”
“A number of organizations are simply trying to enable artists to operate in the market free from subservience to the likes of Facebook and Amazon. … CASH [Music], a non-profit, creates free, open-source digital tools. “Anything an artist needs… to connect directly with their audience on their own website”: a shopping cart, tour-date management, email-list management, etc.”
“The exchange evolved into OurGoods, “an online barter network for artists, designers”…
“Design thinking, [Amy] Whitaker says, is about getting from point A to point B, figuring out how to realize a predetermined goal. Art thinking is an open-ended, exploratory process in the course of which, she says, you “invent point B,” discovering your goal through the act of trying to reach it.”
► Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear by Elizabeth Gilbert – creativity, psychology, work
► Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke – art, doubt, loneliness
Displaying 1 - 30 of 131 reviews