When using the Wikinomics principals of “openness, peering, sharing and acting globally” in relation to cultural production, one of the biggest obstacle to overcome will be how “being an artist” is thought about. Although the romanticized notion of “The Artist” as a type of “impermeable, self-contained creator” has decreased in popularity since the days of Jackson Pollock, some components of this stereotype still remain, and hinder the transition into this new business model.
As we slowly move into a collaborative economy, the ideology of closed capitalism may be more difficult to leave behind. Notions of “individuality” and “individual ownership” still underpin many mainstream conceptions of cultural production. Authorship (or “A name”) is still prized in relation to artistic works. It remains an alluring image to pursue for many artistic practitioners, and potentially, a component of capitalism which will discourages the full switch to Wikinomics.
While engaging in a collective production and sacrificing the ego for a greater good might have its appeal, the monolithic relationship of “the artist” to “their work” is still popular and often sought after. However, this much is understandable. Tapscott and Williams describe this reluctance to actively participate in the principals of Wikinomics as being a part of “Tarzan Economics”, where one must continue to hold onto the “old vine” (or business model) until the new one is fully grasped (271.) This theory is reinforced when taking a Marxist approach to the matter as well.
If the economy informs the superstructure, then how cultural work is produced, distributed and consumed must first change, to facilitate people thinking differently about the system and their roles within it. The marriage of “individuality” to cultural production may slow down the transition to Wikinomics, as people cling to old models. However, if being open, peering, sharing and acting globally is rewarded and encouraged, the already out-dated model of “The Artist” may completely disappear from art.
Tags: socs socs300 300 sosc artist art individuality wikinomics ownership cultural production
October 17, 2008 at 12:28 am |
Hmm…I have thought often about the very thing you are discussing here. I haven’t done the research, but I wonder if the big changes (like the kind needed here) usually come about, or are made possible, because of catastrophic events, which cause the shift in the paradigm. I don’t know, just wondering aloud.
October 17, 2008 at 4:43 am |
I appreciate your article. I think being and artist will always have a solitary aspect to it. The ‘individuality’ I believe you are describing is connected to capitalism and ownership. That part I agree will hopefully disappear from art. The individual who is a groundbreaker hopefully will not.
October 18, 2008 at 7:07 am |
Joyce – I guess some major changes the economy would have to occur, before a culture would emerge that would be reflective of those changes. Decentralization to the extent that a larger collective of individuals can find ways to capitalize just might not cut it… Maybe all big business might have to burn before “The Artist” does as well?
Ahoffart – Thanks
Although, I sometimes wonder if that solitude is only made permissible by individual action being an accepted modes of artistic production? I mean, i definitely agree: there is a solitary aspect to it, but i guess i can’t help but wonder if my solitary efforts were less accepted then those of a group production, if i’d just learn to be a team player? I suppose ultimately though, may a culture that values any mode of “breaking ground” is the ideal, individual or otherwise.
October 19, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
Just checked out your mask making site through wiki 7. Very impressive. I especially like the geez bunny one. I would like to see them in real life.
October 23, 2008 at 10:48 pm |
Ahah, thanks! Glad y’dig ‘em… cause the process of digging would totally be necessary to retrieve ‘em from the pit of storage they’re currently residing in
Heh, some of them (including the geez bunny) look pretty mangled at this point in time though. Y’value them as artifacts for awhile, & they lose their “newness” & y’don’t care how busted up they get…