Historically, the arts have been funded by patronage. The
commercialization of the arts is a fairly recent phenomenon. Yes, many
great artists have died penniless with their genius unrecognized. But
that means they created out of love for their art and the need to
express their genius not out of a desire for financial renumeration.
In addition, original works of art are far more valuable than
reproductions. So not only is there an innate desire in true creators
to create, there is also an innate desire in others to reward this
creation, after the fact. There is joy in the act of creation and there
is joy in others when they appreciate what was created. I've been in
movie theaters where the audience stood up and gave the movie standing
ovation even though none of the creators were there to hear the
applause. There is no doubt that at that point in time many people
would have paid generously if making a payment was as easy as tapping a
button on their phone. Films that moved people would be rewarded.
The notion that patronage does not work is only in the context of a
world where the arts have been bastardized and exploited for monetary
gain. Of course people who are embedded in the commercialization model
will have a difficult time making the transition. This is a feature not
a bug. It would be a benefit to have the exploiters weeded out so more
genuine creation and genius can flourish. It is insane to for us to
give the role of story-teller to Hollywood writers. They are not the
people who should be teaching our children about relationships. Sex
sells. Violence sells. But these are not the stories and myths we want
our children to be raised on. The information we pass on to the next
generation should not be based primarily on what is most titillating.
As the cost to copy, store, and transmit information continues to
plummet, the commercialization model becomes less and less tenable,
requiring draconian measure to give content owners more and more control
over all aspects of information transfer and processing. It would
require a fascist dictatorship over information.
OTOH, the patronage model becomes easier as information technology
advances. It can be fueled by instant micropayments so everyone who
chooses to can participate and vote with their wallets. In the long
run it is the only sensible approach. But even in the short term,
it is the only way I know of to stem the tide of cultural exploitation
and destruction that the commercialization of the arts has caused.
Culture belongs to everybody. It is our birthright and it is the
lifeblood of our civilization. It is crazy to lock it up tightly due to
the fact that the cost of information transfer and storage is getting
close to zero. The cost to our society and to our civilization for this
lock-up is enormous because we are denying our children and our
children's children their birthright. It is a form of cultural and
societal suicide. The miracle of life is based on passing genetic
information from one generation to the next. Human beings were able to
supercharge this passing on of information by creating side-channels:
art, language, history, science and the humanities, even religion.
Evolution in these side-channel information transfers was staggeringly
fast compared to genetic evolution. Stifling this form of evolution is
the ultimate triumph of mediocrity over genius.
