Journalism mimics art

I had this conversation with Andrew Golis on Twitter the other day…

agolis You either get to 1. complain about intrusive advertising on the internet, or 2. complain about the dying funding for journalism. Not both. 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis disagree. information is being released from market forces (no longer scarce, etc), and complainers need to be making new models 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna it’s easy for someone to say they’re “making” a new model. I’d make an exception for someone had *MADE* a new model 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis true. Can’t help but hold up @digidave for that, but still. Relying on profit-based systems is what’4 failing us 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna Yes, @digidave can complain. But few others have made as much progress. Profit/non-profit is beside the pt, both need REVENUE. 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis didn’t mean profit in the for-/non- sense, meant it in the capitalist sense. (Cont’d) 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

randomdeanna @agolis Meaning, we have to not just be thinking of funding models but production as well. Analogies to art production might be more useful 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna ah, totally interesting. Would love to read your full thoughts on that. Have a post I can read/link to? 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis Can write something up later tonight— just been having that convo recently. Thinking news + art producers are in similar spot 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna scary thought. The art world isn’t exactly the land of stable incomes… 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

— this quote was brought to you by quoteurl

So, here’s the delayed post I promised. Rather unformed, and the intention is to inspire discussion…

Let me begin with the acknowledgment that what many journalists, writers and news producers are going through right now is a moment of clear, direct pain. Jobs are scarce, funding is scarce, everything is scarce except information/news itself. What I’m about to toss around, I realize, isn’t going to put food on anyone’s table anytime soon.

I made the comparison above to illustrate how other unquantifiable production processes have been going through what journalism is experiencing for probably a very long time. Art isn’t a scarce commodity: anyone can claim to be a writer, a painter, a sculptor, etc. There’s little in the way of really being able to say who is and isn’t an artist. (I’m reminded of a friend who’s currently dating a woman who answers the “what do you do” question with, “Well, I’m a performance artist but no one seems to notice.”)

Journalism is struggling with this prospect now as well, vis a vis “citizen” production of news. Are non-mainstream blogs, then, the folk art, or the outsider art, of journalism? How does something like credentialling an event work when everyone’s a “journalist?” How do galleries and collectors consider an artist to be Good? There’s a mixture of talent, experience, taste, background, education or lack thereof, that goes into the mix.

Then you’ve got the crux of the matter: money. How can journalistic endeavors, desperately needed to maintain our terribly just and free society and all that, be supported? Since information/news is no longer a scarce commodity, it just doesn’t fit into a market-based model anymore, in my head. Advertising is only going to carry it so far, as we’re seeing. And besides, do we really want news to be only of commercial value? Do I only want to read news in places where advertisers want to see their ads?

This is what got me thinking about the art analogy a few weeks ago. (who was I talking to about this? did I read something? let me know.) For eons, there have been many avenues the artist can follow: commercial (Hallmark cards, pop music, etc), government-funded (NEA grants, NYSCA grants, etc), foundation funded (Yaddo retreats, what have you), family funded, collective supported, street selling (a form of commercial, for sure)… and any blend of those above is becoming more and more prominent.

I think about Bowery Poetry Club/Bowery Arts & Science; the former being the for-profit venture that hasn’t profited much of anything, but is still alive through accepting all kinds of performance to its stage, and the latter being the non-profit that gets grants to fund programs, largely thru the Club, that are deemed culturally necessary but not commercially viable— the Alzheimer’s project, the Griot in Residence program, more. (Disclosure: I worked for them.) Or Eyebeam… I don’t know what their funding model is, but they’re at a pretty unique intersection of art and tech, and it makes me think they’re worth looking at, too.

Art, despite the instability that Andrew rightly calls out, hasn’t disappeared, tho. Art hasn’t even gotten worse, just more available. There is always cynicism about popular culture, but that’s too easy of a target. There’s just more of everything available to us. If you’re a musician, for example, it’s easier than ever to get your work heard by more people than just your friends. But not paid for by a whole bunch, probably. That’s the sticker, eh? A few years ago, as Napster started ticking off the recording industry, someone said that it was clearer than ever what the musician’s job is: not to sell records, but to travel around and play for people. That’s what they’ve always done, and that’s what they’re returning to.

Journalism is grasping at straws for a new model to pay everyone’s salaries. The old model, though, was in many ways distorted, and probably distended. Maybe it’s not, however, that journalistic endeavors are going to be the new starving artists— maybe it’s that news producers and art makers need to get their heads together and figure out how we’re going to create not a model, but a whole new system that creates thrivable conditions for creators to get their jobs done.

Open questions for me include:

1. Who pays for art? Who pays for news? The crux: is it any less valuable, really, if no one pays for it in one way or another? How will the producer live under this current version of capitalism if no one pays? Does the producer have a “right” to live as a producer, or do we continue making them support themselves with supplemental income?
2. What conditions will it take for the new system I mention above to emerge? How bad does it have to get?
3. Can we ensure more equitable distribution of voices and support in either a new model or system, given the tools that we have?