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

diacritical

Douglas McLennan's blog

Do we need Institutions To Make Art?

April 26, 2009 by Douglas McLennan 4 Comments

devolution.jpgIn the early ’00’s, the movie industry looked on as the music industry’s business model was cannibalized by file sharing services. Bandwidth issues bought Hollywood a few extra years to figure out how to adapt to the digital threat.

Eventually iTunes proved a viable model to sell music over the web, even as the recording industry devolved into smaller pieces. The movie industry did indeed benefit from extra time and no one today is talking about the death of the movie business.

Today journalism is facing devolution of its business model as access to news sources explodes. USC’s Robert Niles succinctly outlines the problem:

Simply put, while a highly competitive Internet publishing market
can provide enough ad and direct payment revenue to support reporting,
it can no longer routinely provide the funding to support a traditional
corporate model for journalism, one that demands a deep organizational
chart and significant annual profits.

That corporate model did
provide great value to journalism in the past, of course. Its managers
and ad representative leveraged financial support from communities,
allowing journalists to do their reporting unconcerned with that work.

Without
those payment for those additional bodies, the work of leveraging
community financial support falls to the reporters (and few remaining
editors) themselves, a task that few are trained to do.

Which leads to an inevitable question. If large news organizations can no longer support themselves, do we really need large institutions to report news? Niles again:

Small organizations can do robust work. Instead of handling all tasks
of reporting and editing in house, they can leverage the abilities of
their communities to build substantial reporting work. Witness some of
the crowd-sourced vetting of Friday “document dumps” done by small
sites such as Talking Points Memo, for example. (TPM Media grew from a
one-person blog, by the way.) Small and one-person news sites can work
with one another, as well, to build and share traffic and reporting
resources. Large-scale investigative reporting need not be sacrificed
under a new, small-scale organizational model.

There’s lots of debating to be done about whether we need large institutions to report news. But a similar question can also be asked about the arts. The 1990s was a decade of arts institutionalization in America. Smaller theatres became larger theatres. Mid-size museums became bigger museums. And symphony orchestras expanded their activities.

The internet has decentralized the arts. People make art online, compose and record music and make movies in home studios, Massive online multiplayer games have changed the ways we think about narrative. Personal digital players have changed the ways audiences consume art.

Concurrently, the institutional arts are finding their business models eroding as corporate funding dissolves, foundation support erodes and endowments shrink. Perhaps things will bounce back when the economy improves. But maybe not. We increasingly distrust the institutional voice in favor of individual or community collaboration, and whereas we once needed institutions to accomplish things, increasingly we find community effort to be more efficient. Clay Shirky has been exploring this idea for a while:

Surely we need institutions to perform symphonies, display Tutankhamun relics, or dance Swan Lake. But defenders of news organizations say the same thing about the need for newspapers to do in-depth reporting. Then ProPublica and Politico and GlobalPost come along with ways to fund such reporting.

One could imagine something like the “community of musicians” orchestra exec Ernest Fleischmann and New Criterion writer Samuel Lipman debated about some 20 years ago as a way to perform orchestral music. Theatre is already largely a freelance profession for actors, and one could imagine regional theatres as homes to many producer/productions rather than the single-tenant creatures they are now.

And there’s something else. As people have more choices, their loyalties to institutions soften. Most arts institutions have done a better job of selling tickets than building communities. In a world of rapidly expanding choice, selling tickets gets harder. For an audience, investing in a relationship or community is different from the consumer choice of simply buying a ticket. If you are primarily a consumer choice, you are increasingly at a disadvantage as the choices expand. 

Arts organizations that focus on “selling more tickets” will more and more lose out to community-based networks and companies that figure out that community experience beats consumer transaction. What if institutions aren’t the best way of making art?

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. Wiley Hausam says

    April 26, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Very very interesting talk by Clay Shirky! Thank you for sharing this and the rest of the piece.

    Reply
  2. Tony Reynolds says

    April 27, 2009 at 4:10 am

    I am not a big fan of institutions/organizations. I have long believed as Shirky posits that their primary focus is on self survival. That said, however, there is a support function being performed. Saying that institutions make art is like saying the orchestra pit gave a great performance tonight. No orchestra pits and large institutions do not make art, they support it. Afterall, the orchestra players need a place within which to play. But only individuals make the art. Shirky's Flicker example fails in one aspect, without the company "Flicker", without the structure of a group of individuals (probably capitalists) there would not be the platform upon which the cooperative effort stands. My question is, how is that effort and resource going to be provided. It seems that someone must always begin the process and, if the process, project, is large enough, may gather others. Thus a group, thus an organization. Is there a cooperative example that does not have even an iota of institutionalisation?

    Reply
  3. Matt Kopans says

    April 27, 2009 at 5:52 am

    The problem with this strategy for art is what Mr. Shirky calls "Mass Amateurization" In the same way that journalists are losing their jobs to bloggers, how do we protect professional artists from losing their jobs to amateurization? Yes, art can (and will) be decentralized, but do we believe that there is a value to a professional arts class?

    Reply
  4. Douglas McLennan says

    April 27, 2009 at 7:49 am

    @Matt: I fear it might be too late already. Actors in many (most) cities can't make a full time living practicing their craft. Is it possible to make a career as a concert pianist these days? Sure, for a few handfuls of people. But for the vast majority of pianists who went through even the best music schools, it isn't possible. Likewise poets, playwrights, and visual artists. Most artists can't make a full time living at their craft. They supplement by teaching, getting posts in academia, or working other jobs. Does that make them amateurs because they can't support themselves full time with their art?

    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
  • "Art Is Good?" Not Much Of An Argument For Art Is It?

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