The state of culture Ted describes is actually abysmal because we can't value culture by the amount of content created but by if and how it is consumed and shared. The problem, as Ted states, is obvious: there is an explosion of supply but not demand, which is limited by physical constraints such as time and attention. Technology has ble…
The state of culture Ted describes is actually abysmal because we can't value culture by the amount of content created but by if and how it is consumed and shared. The problem, as Ted states, is obvious: there is an explosion of supply but not demand, which is limited by physical constraints such as time and attention. Technology has blessed us with the explosion of supply with new tools for creating and sharing, but it has also created an impossible task for valuing consumption. Consumption of art is free today, which means the production of art is also done for free. Of course, winner-take-all has created a bonanza of ancillary wealth for the few who command the attention of the global masses. But this only means we get creative content from the same small pool of artists, which starves the ecosystem of innovative creativity. (Who is Colleen Hoover and is she writing the same romance novel again and again?)
So, how to rebalance supply and demand to reinvigorate cultural innovation? Certainly not by looking at mass audience models that can only feed winner-take-all dynamics. My answer is that we need to look to the creative process that defines us as humans. Culture does not create humanity; humanity creates culture and our humanity is embodied in what we create and share, not in what we consume. Since we are all part of this global humanity, the answer is in the creative and sharing process, not just attention-consuming consumption. In other words, when we create and share our own humanity, we become more attentive and appreciative of others' creations. I am a photographer, thus I seek out other photographers' works.
The industrial and post-industrial economy created a bifurcation between creators and audiences where fewer and fewer creators command more and more attention from audiences. One is either a creator or a consumer, but we are all both. Rebalancing this means more niche market networks for varied content and better human connections within those networks. The dearth of demand is solved by the creative social network, not the network platforms or the distributors. All we need is a creative network that serves creators and those who wish to share their creations and leaves the technology and distribution platforms to the sole task of discovery, connection, and coordination. My friends recommend new art to me, not Amazon, Apple or Spotify.
Yes, we get too wrapped up with commercial metrics rather than human metrics. Making money and creating wealth is great, but there's an important distinction between price and value. Price is a very imperfect measure of value. We probably learn this too late in life.
There's a wise old saying: "The best things in life ARE free."
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Value is value and I would always be seeking value, which might mean more timely and safe service, as well as competence.
Pacemakers are not free but getting one implanted so that you lived long enough to enjoy your first grandchild would put it on your Best list. Value is relative and changes with time and circumstances.
Well, my point is that on your deathbed what would you have valued more - your new pacemaker or the time it afforded with your grandchildren? The former merely served the more important latter. The point of the saying is that things don't matter as much as the experiences in life - many of which are free. I don't think we need to nitpick beyond that.
The state of culture Ted describes is actually abysmal because we can't value culture by the amount of content created but by if and how it is consumed and shared. The problem, as Ted states, is obvious: there is an explosion of supply but not demand, which is limited by physical constraints such as time and attention. Technology has blessed us with the explosion of supply with new tools for creating and sharing, but it has also created an impossible task for valuing consumption. Consumption of art is free today, which means the production of art is also done for free. Of course, winner-take-all has created a bonanza of ancillary wealth for the few who command the attention of the global masses. But this only means we get creative content from the same small pool of artists, which starves the ecosystem of innovative creativity. (Who is Colleen Hoover and is she writing the same romance novel again and again?)
So, how to rebalance supply and demand to reinvigorate cultural innovation? Certainly not by looking at mass audience models that can only feed winner-take-all dynamics. My answer is that we need to look to the creative process that defines us as humans. Culture does not create humanity; humanity creates culture and our humanity is embodied in what we create and share, not in what we consume. Since we are all part of this global humanity, the answer is in the creative and sharing process, not just attention-consuming consumption. In other words, when we create and share our own humanity, we become more attentive and appreciative of others' creations. I am a photographer, thus I seek out other photographers' works.
The industrial and post-industrial economy created a bifurcation between creators and audiences where fewer and fewer creators command more and more attention from audiences. One is either a creator or a consumer, but we are all both. Rebalancing this means more niche market networks for varied content and better human connections within those networks. The dearth of demand is solved by the creative social network, not the network platforms or the distributors. All we need is a creative network that serves creators and those who wish to share their creations and leaves the technology and distribution platforms to the sole task of discovery, connection, and coordination. My friends recommend new art to me, not Amazon, Apple or Spotify.
Michael this hit home for me:
"Culture does not create humanity; humanity creates culture and our humanity is embodied in what we create and share, not in what we consume."
Yes, we get too wrapped up with commercial metrics rather than human metrics. Making money and creating wealth is great, but there's an important distinction between price and value. Price is a very imperfect measure of value. We probably learn this too late in life.
There's a wise old saying: "The best things in life ARE free."
Would you still say that if your daughter was pregnant with your first grandchild and you were in urgent need of a pacemaker?
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Value is value and I would always be seeking value, which might mean more timely and safe service, as well as competence.
Pacemakers are not free but getting one implanted so that you lived long enough to enjoy your first grandchild would put it on your Best list. Value is relative and changes with time and circumstances.
Well, my point is that on your deathbed what would you have valued more - your new pacemaker or the time it afforded with your grandchildren? The former merely served the more important latter. The point of the saying is that things don't matter as much as the experiences in life - many of which are free. I don't think we need to nitpick beyond that.