At lunch earlier this week, an old (by which I mean "long-time") colleague and I were talking about why it has become so difficult to achieve success in any artistic endeavor--whether writing, singing, painting, dancing, and so forth.
Of course, it was NEVER easy. It's just that it seems a lot more difficult in 2009. Of course, there are many ways to define success, but for the sake of this post let's define it as "the ability to pay your living expenses, and live a moderately decent lifestyle, through revenue generated by your art." So, as an example, a "successful novelist" is one who makes enough money from royalties to pay his/her mortgage, make the car payments, put food on the table and utilities in the house, take care of the children, and save for the future. A "successful actor" can afford all the same things. To this definition of "successful" I should add that this must be over a longish period. It's easy enough to make a livable wage when you are "hot," but we all know how fickle American taste is; and today's chart-toppers are tomorrow's has-beens.
The joint conclusion we came to is this: We have hit a period of sensory overload in the arts. Society simply cannot absorb all the artistic products of all the artists who want their work out there. As a result, a few big names continue to garner massive salaries/earnings, while the vast majority struggle for notice.
Let's compare today with, say, 1975. Back then, there were a few movie studios turning out a finite number of films each year. There was also a decent but finite number of publishers, who signed up writers based on the quality of their work and their ability to develop a following. On TV, there were a few major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) that controlled what people watched. In music, there were a few powerful record labels who signed talent and promoted their careers. In short, there were many fewer actors being seen, TV shows being watched, and books available for purchase. This is why "hits" in those days were so massive and ubiquitous. When you had a hit TV show, half of America tuned in to watch. When a song played on one of the two or three metro-area stations, it could become a massive hit and stimulate the sales of a million albums.
Now, in 2009, thanks to technology, the sheer number of people willing to produce entertainment for the masses has exploded exponentially. Cable TV offers 500 channels. Record companies have imploded; people don't buy albums/CDs any more; they buy one song at a time from iTunes, when they're not pirating the song from some free shareware site. Filmmakers, tired of studio restrictions, have struck out on their own, and more independent films than ever are being made. The big publishers still have a lot of market power (which is why MWA loves them so much), but hundreds (thousands?) of small presses have started up, offering alternatives to the now-incredibly-difficult "get an agent, get a big advance, get a big publisher" process--which is now open only to the select few.
At the same time, society has changed. Repressive restrictions on personal expression have subsided since the 50s, and we are encouraged to "follow our bliss" and tap into our inner creativity. Once we do that, we want to share it with the world. We want our music heard, our acting seen, our books read. We don't have big names or big connections, so young musicians hire out studio time and put their music up on their Facebook pages for free, hoping they'll get a viral hit. Actors work for free in indie films, hoping someone will notice. Writers sign on with smaller publishers (who offer little in the way of advances, because we simply can't afford it), and some even decide to self-publish.
Now imagine the poor consumer, who's working more hours than ever and has the demands of family, work, etc., to cope with. How can the average person, who is already overloaded, absorb all these new singers, actors, films, and writers? The answer is -- He can't. Maybe he'll hear about a new book from a friend, or go to a film on the recommendation of a friend, but he can't possibly read all the new books or figure out who's the "hot" new TV actor when he has 500 channels to choose from.
So these are the conditions in which we toil. Putting myself in the shoes of the average consumer, I can understand why, when faced with a choice, she will purchase her copy of the latest Mary Higgins Clark rather than try brand-new mystery novelist John Smith or Jane Doe. And in terms of music, it's easiest to stick with what you know when you're an adult and not having specific acts (Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift) rammed down your throat by multimedia conglomerates (let's try an anagram here: Y E N S I D).
And while we're on the topic - Why should anyone PAY for their entertainment when so many people are willing to give it away for free? I could literally get rid of my TV set and spend my entire life watching interesting videos on YouTube. If I posted at the right places on the Internet, I could have hundreds of writers sending me free copies of their book, in the hopes that I'd say something nice about it in some public forum, which might cause some lone person in the middle of Colorado to purchase a copy from Amazon. With TIVO, I can watch any TV show I might like and simply blip past the commercials, which pay the bills. And why should I subscribe to a newspaper when I can get all the latest news for free on their Websites or Yahoo? Consumers aren't dumb, and they seek to satisfy their desires at the lowest possible cost. I can't get mad at people who want free books, as I like free books myself. But all of this together does make my job damn hard, which is why I posted (in a recent posting) that I feel as though small publishers are increasingly becoming philanthropic organizations funded by people who have made money in other endeavors and do it for the love of reading, and are willing to see the business through the inevitable cycles of red and black ink.
I have watched some mystery writers do everything in their power -- and well beyond what is expected of them -- to establish their names. They go to conventions, give speeches, give away copies of their books, get coverage in newspapers, have legions of fans -- and are still dropped by their publisher for lack of sales. It happens often, and it will continue to happen. I wish I had a solution, but I don't. The answer is probably to have fewer publishers, fewer TV choices, and just less STUFF in general competing for our already limited time. But that isn't going to happen, which is why I have said a million times, and will say again, that all creative types should look on their creative endeavors as hobbies that may someday earn them a bit of money -- and that they shouldn't ever quit their day jobs.
I think it's slightly more complicated than that--for instance, there aren't 500 cable channels. There are 100 cable channels, which you can see in 5 different time zones/definitions/languages/what have you, so the mere effort of trying to find something new is 5 times more difficult. When it seems like everything is a rerun, one tends to just stick with whatever is nearest to hand--the pay-off for seeking out something else is that much less likely to be worth it.
Posted by: Leslie | July 24, 2009 at 06:18 PM