Among the aspects of this brave new world least popular is ownership of small, dedicated companies by huge, multifaceted corporations. Many see this tendency as resulting in a more mediocre culture. Resisting this rising tide of conglomerates are the few, the proud, the independent book publishers running houses that remain oases of individual taste and passion.
At the bottom of it the big difference between mass corporate owners and independent owners is quite straightforward. The latter is built upon or run by someone working there out of some sort of interest in actual books. That leaves at least some room for surprising, individualistic books that didn't have to pass a focus group. Perhaps a book will slip into existence based on a refined taste rather than a cross section of consumers.
Many of those who run these houses are graduates of our country's Master of Fine Arts programs. These programs have the traditional role of carrying on the teaching of the craftsmanship needed for the finest work in various arts. Conventionally, these graduates might have hoped for careers teaching their art as a college professor or perhaps high school teacher. This would pay the bills while the degreed artist grew steadily more renowned among his or her peers.
The ranks of the MFA grads swell while the relative number of academic posts lags behind. Simultaneous to this is a dramatic drop in the number of people in the symphony hall, the number of subscribers to poetry magazines, even indie film theaters. Every year the need to support arts institutions and build new ones grows more clear.
More and more graduates are looking at the economics of the arts squarely and concluding that the real front lines of the arts lie in the means of their production. If only poets read poetry, it is an open question whether poetry truly exists. Increasingly, MFA programs themselves offer their students training in how to publish a magazine or run a book publishing house.
A lot of the difficulty lies in the ubiquity of the personal computer. There's no question that it has made the arts more widely available. However, the internet has proven itself a liability to efforts to monetize much fine art.
Some have warned of a possibly enduring result of modern electronically enhanced, big budget art, a result that should warn of a possibly grim future. There is evidence of a general fraying of the attention span, a decrease in the patience to focus. The grand, slow pacing of 1960s and 1970s films, those remembered for their cinematography, is lost on many young people. A three movement symphony simply has no chance to win someone with such over-stimulated nerves.
The new millenium at least manages to open a door for every one it seems to close. Those heroically staffing then small publishing houses might romanticize the modernist 1920s, when the work seemed to matter even to many who could not read it. But the future could just belong to the lone self-publisher working on a laptop, even the one lacking an MFA.
At the bottom of it the big difference between mass corporate owners and independent owners is quite straightforward. The latter is built upon or run by someone working there out of some sort of interest in actual books. That leaves at least some room for surprising, individualistic books that didn't have to pass a focus group. Perhaps a book will slip into existence based on a refined taste rather than a cross section of consumers.
Many of those who run these houses are graduates of our country's Master of Fine Arts programs. These programs have the traditional role of carrying on the teaching of the craftsmanship needed for the finest work in various arts. Conventionally, these graduates might have hoped for careers teaching their art as a college professor or perhaps high school teacher. This would pay the bills while the degreed artist grew steadily more renowned among his or her peers.
The ranks of the MFA grads swell while the relative number of academic posts lags behind. Simultaneous to this is a dramatic drop in the number of people in the symphony hall, the number of subscribers to poetry magazines, even indie film theaters. Every year the need to support arts institutions and build new ones grows more clear.
More and more graduates are looking at the economics of the arts squarely and concluding that the real front lines of the arts lie in the means of their production. If only poets read poetry, it is an open question whether poetry truly exists. Increasingly, MFA programs themselves offer their students training in how to publish a magazine or run a book publishing house.
A lot of the difficulty lies in the ubiquity of the personal computer. There's no question that it has made the arts more widely available. However, the internet has proven itself a liability to efforts to monetize much fine art.
Some have warned of a possibly enduring result of modern electronically enhanced, big budget art, a result that should warn of a possibly grim future. There is evidence of a general fraying of the attention span, a decrease in the patience to focus. The grand, slow pacing of 1960s and 1970s films, those remembered for their cinematography, is lost on many young people. A three movement symphony simply has no chance to win someone with such over-stimulated nerves.
The new millenium at least manages to open a door for every one it seems to close. Those heroically staffing then small publishing houses might romanticize the modernist 1920s, when the work seemed to matter even to many who could not read it. But the future could just belong to the lone self-publisher working on a laptop, even the one lacking an MFA.
No comments:
Post a Comment