May 17, 2010
“We’re from the artists’ collective, and we’re here to help”
If I sneak into your yard and paint a picture on your wall, do you now own my painting? Or, as the artist, do I retain ownership of the painting and its context?
What if I paint the picture on seemingly abandoned property? Does the bank now own it? The municipality? What if you like it so much that you decide to cut the art out of the wall — to protect it, of course — and move it to your gallery? Have you just become an art thief? And, if so, did you steal from the property owner, or the original artist?
These questions, and more, are playing out in Detroit, where famed street artist Banksy recently splashed his overnight guerrilla art on the crumbling wall of a shuttered factory. The art was promptly rescued from the scene by a “feisty grassroots group” of artists connected with an art gallery, who preserved it by sawing it out of the wall and trucking it to their gallery where, presumably, it now stands preserved like a piece of that other Wall that once bisected Berlin.
I have to admit that Banksy has been, at best, a slow burn for me, and I have very real concerns about art that appears on private property without permission, but there’s no question that his current cross-country-America meanderings have been entertaining and have had the beneficial side effect of opening up discussions about art in the public sphere. For instance, in this case, if an artist creates a work specific to a place — ignoring its legality for the moment — isn’t it better to leave it there, where it speaks for itself, rather than move it to a room with hardwood floors and refrigerated air, where a small, tasteful card explains exactly what “all this” refers to?
As is often the case, the most astute commentary — from both sides — can be found on the inevitable Metafilter thread about the art heist:
“This can only legally be described as one thing: Theft of a wall on which an act of vandalism has been committed.
“I love Banksy’s stuff – it’s everything art should be. It’s interesting, relevant, controversial, and it’s highly visible. It’s accessible. Is it supposed to be permanent? Of course not.
“However, I also agree that it’s obviously vandalism. It’s part of the discomfort that makes his stuff so interesting. Is the act of vandalism more accepted because of the works? Is it more valuable because he’s famous? Is it more relevant because it’s discussed? When does it cross the line?
“There are no right and wrong answers to these questions – only legal ramifications. But when something is in the public realm, and it’s not your property, you have no right to take it. As soon as 555 did that, they ruined the piece.”
May 15, 2010
Felt wisdom
Why is it that the pundits making the most sense these days are either fake or puppets?
RE: The stolen iPhone prototype, Mosspuppet says:
“My question to you various idiots is: What the hell did you expect them to do? If someone steals your stuff, you call the cops.
“Imagine for a moment that someone broke into your house and stole your television. Would you be guilty of manipulating the system if you phoned the police and reported them? No, of course not, you’d be doing the only reasonable thing you could do. Would you be benevolent if you let it slide and didn’t file an official report? No, you’d be a colossal idiot!”
May 14, 2010
Sam Phillips rewrites the music business model. And plays guitar. And sings
Sam Phillips is not just a singer-songwriter, she’s a mogul.
Well, okay. A mini-mogul. And she’d probably bristle at even that. But through her year-long “Longplay” experiment in making music in semi-public for a paying audience, she’s set herself up as a fascinating amalgam of record company exec and free-wheeling artist.
And what’s really neat about it, it’s allowed average fans to become patrons of her art. Well, mini-patrons. For a dollar a week, anyone can buy into the experiment, directly supporting her work and getting early access to the music as it is recorded and made available to paying members (if you come in late, you still get access to all the music already released).
I’m reminded of this because her latest EP, Old Tin Pan, just came out and, once again, I’m getting to enjoy new music and she and her band are able to (I’m assuming here) keep the food on the table. Or buy some nice shoes. Whatever. And it’s really not about the money, but about the support: I pay because I want her to keep at it. There are lots of other performers I’d gladly support similarly, if they’d only ask.
Think of this the next time someone says people won’t pay for anything online. They will. We will. We just won’t pay for crap or commodity. I’ll pay for Sam’s music, or Evernote’s service or great iPad apps like Appigo’s ToDo or the amazingly useful Digging Into WordPress e-book.
There’s a business model for you: Make things people want to pay for.
May 14, 2010
Do pay walls create new opportunities?
The New York Times, as expected, seems to have settled on a date for the paywall to go live: January, 2011.
There’s no point in hashing out, again, whether or not this is a good idea for the New York Times and the many other major metro papers considering such a move. The one good thing about paywalls going live is that the theoretical questions will finally be answered in the real world.
No, what’s interesting is whether this is a good idea for other sites serving those same markets. If, for instance, The Chicago Tribune eventually opts for a paywall of any kind, do the people in the newsroom of WLS and other local media bliss out over the potential for reaching more news consumers? What about the rapidly growing ecosystem of micro-local news and information sites serving communities and towns? If your local newspaper walls up, will you pay, or find other sources?
By stepping back from a 100% free model — no matter how carefully (and slowly – we’ve been talking about this for years) — the large news sites can’t help but create some amount of vacuum into which the smaller sites — and audience — will flow.
But that’s where this all gets very interesting. Because if we’ve learned nothing else in the past decade, it’s that gathering a large audience — “eyeballs,” as the ad guys used to say — is no longer enough. Large publishers and tiny publishers need to cover their costs and make a little profit in the bargain if they’re going to continue publishing. So flowing into the vacuum isn’t enough for the upstarts — they need real business plans.
Recently in the NY Times Magazine, there was a long look at the business models of the non-traditional publishers that have emerged in recent years. It strikes more of an elegiac tone than I think is entirely appropriate, implying that the task is Sisyphean, but it’s essential reading for anyone trying to understand the struggles the journalism business model is facing and will continue to face.
The overriding theme: The future is much, much leaner for journalism, and that business models will need to change, radically, to accommodate that fact:
…the new world could end up looking a lot like the old one, albeit with smaller newsrooms and new players. Politico replaces the Washington correspondent, TMZ is the gossip page and you can get coverage of your baseball team directly from MLB.com, which employs professional sportswriters. In cities like San Diego, New York and Washington, online start-ups are taking on metro news coverage, hoping to tap local ad markets. All of these publications have been hiring real, full-time employees — as have nontraditional providers like Yahoo, which is constructing a new political news site.
If you’re a journalist or a publisher, whether you read that passage and weep or rub your hands with anticipation and hope is a good indicator of what the next few years hold in store for you.
Photo: Creative Commons license, flickr user Shawn Econo.
May 14, 2010
Parkour: The Internet sensation of 2004
I’m reminded of what Jim Halpert said:
“This is Parkour, the Internet sensation of 2004. The goal is to get from Point A to Point B as creatively as possible. So, technically, they are doing Parkour, as long as Point A is delusion and Point B is the hospital.”
May 14, 2010
Now that’s targeted advertising
A great ad guy knows his target audience better than they know themselves.
So, when copywriter Alec Brownstein went looking for a new gig, he bought Google ad keywords that were the names of prominent agency creative directors. Why? Because he knew Google-assisted narcissism would eventually come to his aid. Watch:
Total cost to Brownstein: $6.00
May 13, 2010
What is iPad?
“It’s already a revolution. And it’s only just begun.”
And it’s also shards of glass and aluminum if that’s how you insist on carrying it around.
Great ad. Great product demo. Lousy example of how to protect your new precious.
(Interesting side note I hadn’t noticed before: iPad, like Pink Floyd and Google, takes no definite article, at least according to this ad.)
Me, elsewhere