Great article, Daniel. Having built YouTube channels with millions of followers, I've experienced firsthand how economic pressures can transform creative work into a cycle of audience-driven content. Even at scale, we risk falling into the same trap that's led Hollywood into its endless remakes.
While we see alternative funding models emerging, from non-profits to crowdfunded projects like 'The Chosen,' the fundamental tension remains. Modern patronage might work for paintings, but what about massive undertakings like films or cathedral that require an army? Should we be developing systematic patron pipelines, or should artists become their own patrons? I think of 'The Passion of the Christ' – a profound work of art that emerged from our profit-driven system, suggesting some possibility of reconciliation between artistic integrity and commercial viability.
As someone straddling both creative and business aspects of media, I'd love to hear your thoughts on navigating this dynamic.
Great observation, Reuben. You’re hitting on an important dimension of art. I'm particularly intrigued by how this principle applies to literature, which we traditionally consume alone. Perhaps this is where book clubs and communal literary analysis serve a vital function? Or is there a dual nature to art? One that allows for both solo consumption and collective celebration? After all, we come together to celebrate our favorite books, allowing them to weave themselves into the fabric of our shared culture.
Excellent observation, Reuben. Thank you. My students argue that a festive attitude, if not festivity, is possible if one watches a fine piece of cinema on one’s own in front of the flatscreen. One argued that communal festivity doesn’t require that everyone be in the same room at the same time.
Great article, Daniel. Having built YouTube channels with millions of followers, I've experienced firsthand how economic pressures can transform creative work into a cycle of audience-driven content. Even at scale, we risk falling into the same trap that's led Hollywood into its endless remakes.
While we see alternative funding models emerging, from non-profits to crowdfunded projects like 'The Chosen,' the fundamental tension remains. Modern patronage might work for paintings, but what about massive undertakings like films or cathedral that require an army? Should we be developing systematic patron pipelines, or should artists become their own patrons? I think of 'The Passion of the Christ' – a profound work of art that emerged from our profit-driven system, suggesting some possibility of reconciliation between artistic integrity and commercial viability.
As someone straddling both creative and business aspects of media, I'd love to hear your thoughts on navigating this dynamic.
Great observation, Reuben. You’re hitting on an important dimension of art. I'm particularly intrigued by how this principle applies to literature, which we traditionally consume alone. Perhaps this is where book clubs and communal literary analysis serve a vital function? Or is there a dual nature to art? One that allows for both solo consumption and collective celebration? After all, we come together to celebrate our favorite books, allowing them to weave themselves into the fabric of our shared culture.
Excellent observation, Reuben. Thank you. My students argue that a festive attitude, if not festivity, is possible if one watches a fine piece of cinema on one’s own in front of the flatscreen. One argued that communal festivity doesn’t require that everyone be in the same room at the same time.