• Home
  • About
    • diacritical
    • Douglas McLennan
    • Contact
  • Other AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

diacritical

Douglas McLennan's blog

Caught In The Middle – Who Are The New Arts Gatekeepers?

April 12, 2009 by Douglas McLennan 5 Comments

Much of the big shift in our culture right now is a re-ordering of power. For the past 50 years, mass culture, fueled by TV, has been a dominant power. When success is measured in millions of eyeballs (or ears), quality is a secondary commodity. Mass culture has permeated the ways we think about all culture.

middlemancomic.jpg

Power in the mass culture model is controlled by gatekeepers – the TV networks, radio stations, record producers, publishers. They had power because they could afford expensive cameras and studios and recording equipment essential to making things and getting them to an audience. Some of the “talent” – the musicians, actors, writers,  journalists – did very well in this model if their work found a huge audience. The vast majority of musicians, actors, writers, and journalists did considerably less well.

The mass culture model only works when the means of creation and distribution are limited in some way – a small number of TV channels available, for example. One could think of the record companies or the TV networks as middlemen who were essential for an artist to connect with a large audience.

But the online world has largely been a revolution of plenty. Now anyone can make studio-quality recordings, professional-looking books or movies or radio shows. So goodbye to the middleman, right? 

Nick Carr says not:

For much of the first decade of the Web’s existence, we were told that the Web, by efficiently connecting buyer and seller, or provider and user, would destroy middlemen. Middlemen were friction, and the Web was a friction-removing machine.

We were misinformed. The Web didn’t kill mediators. It made them stronger. The way a company makes big money on the Web is by skimming little bits of money off a huge number of transactions, with each click counting as a transaction. (Think trillions of transactions.) The reality of the web is hypermediation, and Google, with its search and search-ad monopolies, is the largest hypermediator.

So the web did away with old gatekeepers and is replacing them with new ones. Gatekeepers have always had power over people who make things. Carr writes that:

When a middleman controls a market, the supplier has no real choice but to work with the middleman – even if the middleman makes it impossible for the supplier to make money. Given the choice, most people will choose to die of a slow wasting disease rather than to have their head blown off with a bazooka. But
that doesn’t mean that dying of a slow wasting disease is pleasant.

So who are the mediators/gatekeepers/middlemen in the arts? At the most basic level, they’re the artistic directors and a system of talent scouts and producers who build careers. Some of this power has waned in recent decades. Gone are the days when a Sol Hurok could make a star or a Tchaikovsky Piano Competition winner have an instant career.

Critics at newspapers, the most powerful of whom legendarily could “close a show” with a bad review also wielded great power. But with arts coverage falling off the pages of the local press and the local press falling off the edge of who knows what, critics are not the gatekeepers they once were even if they’re still around.

Now artists can produce their own work and often distribute and promote it better than the old channels could. But one can imagine so many voices braying for attention that just being able to make and get one’s art out to an audience doesn’t mean that there’s an audience interested in it.

So it’s back to the middlemen. Right now, it’s unclear who or what are going to emerge as the new mediators in the arts. We have access to too much stuff for it to make sense, and no media has grown to dominate the middleman function in the new arts economy. So far everyone’s making do with their own ways of dealing with information overload.

Once, an arts organization that could hype its shows and sell tickets
online might have an advantage in the marketplace. Now there’s no advantage
because everyone does it. It was a novelty for a theatre to be on Facebook or a dance company to have its own YouTube channel. No longer.

Slowly we’re beginning to see familiar behavior reassert itself. We’re told that social networking sites such as Second Life and MySpace are dying as Facebook and Twitter grow, perhaps because some people who have established their online communities want to be able to have fresh starts online the way they do in real life.

If people trade off their online communities are they also becoming less loyal to their offline communities? If we assume that there is still a need for middlemen and that the old middlemen are falling away, what’s going to replace them? And where does the new arts organization position itself, with technology and without it?

Share:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Related

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Charlie Humphrey says

    April 12, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    Oh my God, this so all about absolutely nothing. Rarely have I seen anything more breathless and meaningless.

    Reply
  2. Kerry Dexter says

    April 13, 2009 at 6:31 am

    I’ve been, and continue to be, on three sides of the situation, as an artist who creates, one who writes about music, and a listener/viewer/audience member. there are loads of voices out there now certainly, and there are also even more people wandering around, looking for guides they can trust and/or who align with what they are looking for. that, to some extent, has always been the role of those who write about the arts — and I think those of us who do that need to find new ways to reach *our* audiences, too, and with clear vision of what we have to offer, be the ideas focused on certain genres or styles or be it reaching the creative arts through other gateways.

    Reply
  3. Paul Botts says

    April 13, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Heh! I might not have put it quite so meanly, well I hope not anyway, but in substance….yea, pretty much had the same reaction to this post.

    Reply
  4. Joe Kluger says

    April 13, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    For arts organizations today, there is a third alternative to either yielding power and control to rapacious middlemen or being relegated to the obscurity of independent distribution in a market saturated with artistic content. The opportunity arises from a collaborative approach to distribution, which takes advantage of the marketing synergies of customer aggregation, but via a business model in which the risks – and rewards – are shared by the content creators, instead of the content distributors.

    Reply
  5. Saul Davis says

    April 16, 2009 at 10:07 am

    Little has changed. Corporations are reaching farther into the psyche to implant their marketing tools. Now Twitter will be used to read minds and influence them. As long as people are willing to be used, to be servile to marketing, this will continue. As long as technology is our primary tool, it will control us. The real middlemen are the Technology companies and programmers.
    There is little hope for the indidividual artist, less than ever. Without growth in the arts, there is only room for the sure thing. But this began even earlier with the creation of arts administrators. They control both access and programming, and eat up funding. They work hand-in-hand with funders and other organizations to reinforce their entrenchment.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Douglas McLennan

I’m the founder and editor of ArtsJournal, which was founded in September 1999 and aggregates arts and culture news from all over the internet. The site is also home to some 60 arts bloggers. I’m a … [Read More...]

About diacritical

Our culture is undergoing profound changes. Our expectations for what culture can (or should) do for us are changing. Relationships between those who make and distribute culture and those who consume it are changing. And our definitions of what artists are, how they work, and how we access them and their work are changing. So... [Read more]

Subscribe to Diacritical by Email

Receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,851 other subscribers
Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on RSSFollow Us on E-mail

Archives

Recent Comments

  • David E. Myers on How Should we Measure Art?: “A sophisticated approach to “measuring” incorporates all of the above, with clear delineation of how each plays a part if…” Nov 3, 16:20
  • Tom Corddry on How Should we Measure Art?: “Reading this brought to mind John Cage’s delineation of different ways to experience a Beethoven symphony–live in concert, on a…” Nov 3, 01:58
  • Abdul Rehman on A Framework for Thinking about Disruption of the Arts by AI: “This article brilliantly explores how AI is set to revolutionize everything, much like the digital revolution did. AI tools can…” Jun 8, 03:49
  • Richard Voorhaar on Classical Music has Lost a Generation. Blame the Metadata (in part): “I think we’ve lost several generations. My parents generation was the last that really supported, and knre something about classical…” May 15, 12:08
  • Franklin on How Subsidy for Big Tech Wrecked the Arts (and Journalism): “Language, yes; really characterization. Investments and margins don’t become subsidies and taxes whether or not markets “are working” – I’m…” Mar 8, 07:13
  • Douglas McLennan on How Subsidy for Big Tech Wrecked the Arts (and Journalism): “So what you’re arguing is language? – that investments aren’t subsidies and margins aren’t taxes? Sure, when markets are working.…” Mar 7, 21:42
  • Franklin on How Subsidy for Big Tech Wrecked the Arts (and Journalism): “Doug: You can, if you like, buy a jailbroken Android, install GrapheneOS, and sideload apps from the open-source ecosystem at…” Mar 7, 16:17
  • Douglas McLennan on How Subsidy for Big Tech Wrecked the Arts (and Journalism): “Franklin: Thanks for the response, But a few points: My Chinese solar panel example was to make the point that…” Mar 7, 12:46
  • Steven Lavine on How Subsidy for Big Tech Wrecked the Arts (and Journalism): “Terrific essay, with no prospect to a different future” Mar 7, 09:53
  • Franklin on How Subsidy for Big Tech Wrecked the Arts (and Journalism): “The economics of this essay are incoherent. The CCP was creating yuan ex nihilo and flooding it into domestically produced…” Mar 7, 08:49

Top Posts

  • Are Orchestras A Ticket Or An Art? Maybe We're Thinking About The (Made Up) Model Wrong
  • Is The Institutionalization Of Our Arts A Dead End?
  • We Asked: What's the Biggest Challenge Facing the Arts?
  • Creativity Versus Skills
  • If Dance Can't Pay Its Dancers What Does It Mean To Be A Professional Dancer?

Recent Posts

  • Creativity Versus Skills January 12, 2025
  • How Digital AI Twins could Transform how We Make Art January 7, 2025
  • How Should we Measure Art? November 3, 2024
  • Classical Music has Lost a Generation. Blame the Metadata (in part) May 13, 2024
  • When “Vacuum Cleaner for Babies” Beat Taylor Swift: Fixing the Music Streaming Problem May 6, 2024
April 2009
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
« Mar   May »

An ArtsJournal Blog

Recent Posts

  • Creativity Versus Skills
  • How Digital AI Twins could Transform how We Make Art
  • How Should we Measure Art?
  • Classical Music has Lost a Generation. Blame the Metadata (in part)
  • When “Vacuum Cleaner for Babies” Beat Taylor Swift: Fixing the Music Streaming Problem

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in