Comments on: looking for lessons http://blog.playconference.org/2006/11/04/looking-for-lessons/ the Berkeley digital media conference Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:15:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Andrew http://blog.playconference.org/2006/11/04/looking-for-lessons/#comment-5 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:15:20 +0000 http://blog.playconference.org/2006/11/04/looking-for-lessons/#comment-5 Of the 10 things that I want to comment on in Nate's post, I'll start with incentives for creation. Now, 800 years ago I don't know what the feudal lords had to say about paying royalties to troubadors, but I'm assuming its a subject that didn't much come up--and music still got created. Artists saw mild financial gains from their wares--enough to keep themselves fed and safe--but they were more incented (methinks) by the wine, women and song part of the deal. How different are artists today? Music is a moneymaker because some smart business people like us figured out it could be, and they preyed upon the very human impulses of musicians to get those artists to buy into the system. Should technology render moot these well established means of content monetezation will the artists simply go away? No--but will they not create the level of art (production values, scope and vision of artistic expression) that we've come to expect? Well, the money certainly isn't going to disappear completely, so the "Hits" will still get made, at least in the short term. And the rest of the musicians (or film makers or whatever) can create the same quality of art for far, far less than their forbearers. All of this is to say, particularly in the light of lowered costs to the artists of making their art, is the incentives angle as important now as it was 10 or 20 years ago? Of the 10 things that I want to comment on in Nate’s post, I’ll start with incentives for creation. Now, 800 years ago I don’t know what the feudal lords had to say about paying royalties to troubadors, but I’m assuming its a subject that didn’t much come up–and music still got created. Artists saw mild financial gains from their wares–enough to keep themselves fed and safe–but they were more incented (methinks) by the wine, women and song part of the deal.

How different are artists today? Music is a moneymaker because some smart business people like us figured out it could be, and they preyed upon the very human impulses of musicians to get those artists to buy into the system. Should technology render moot these well established means of content monetezation will the artists simply go away? No–but will they not create the level of art (production values, scope and vision of artistic expression) that we’ve come to expect? Well, the money certainly isn’t going to disappear completely, so the “Hits” will still get made, at least in the short term. And the rest of the musicians (or film makers or whatever) can create the same quality of art for far, far less than their forbearers.

All of this is to say, particularly in the light of lowered costs to the artists of making their art, is the incentives angle as important now as it was 10 or 20 years ago?

]]>