?

Log in

No account? Create an account
click opera
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 01:16 am
(Don't want to live in a) hub and spoke world

85CommentReplyFlag

uberdionysus
uberdionysus
Troy Swain: Black Box Miasma
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 03:29 pm (UTC)

Why should you care?

Because it's not about marketing failures. You can't compete against a multi-national corporation if they control all the means of distribution, and Hollywood controls most of the distribution in the world, EXCEPT for the countries that demand that their theaters show a certain amount of locally produced film. The economics question is a question about access, not a question about marketing, or the survival of the fittest.

Equally important, is diversity. You should care about aficionados and small markets because aficionados tend to be the creators, and the new ideas almost always come from small markets. A financial disaster may be the spearhead of a later cultural revolution. It's the "Velvet Underground" effect. The Velvet Underground sold a few records, and were a financial disaster, but it is commonly said that everyone who bought an album started a band.


ReplyThread Parent

(no subject) - (Anonymous)
uberdionysus
uberdionysus
Troy Swain: Black Box Miasma
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 03:53 pm (UTC)

You keep bringing that up, but that's not an issue at all.

It's about allowing MORE access to MORE voices, not about preventing anyone from seeing anything.

It's about access and distribution, not prevention of individual choice. Don't hang on the word "protectionism."


ReplyThread Parent

(no subject) - (Anonymous)
uberdionysus
uberdionysus
Troy Swain: Black Box Miasma
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 04:41 pm (UTC)
What I was refering to...

You keep bringing up being "barred or hindered from gaining access" to Fill-in-the-Bad-Art, but have showed no rationale why foreign artistic subsidies (cultural preservation) would effect your access to various arts.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 05:25 pm (UTC)

Redistribution of limited resources always means exclusion of one thing in favour of another. "It's about allowing more access to more voices" sounds like Sunday school.

There is this debate in Germany that occasionally pops up about having a minimum quota for German-language songs on the radio. This is of course only endorsed by right-wing, populist second-tier artists.

As is often the case, Momus' views again coincide -- against his intentions, one assumes -- with right-wing traditionalist views.

der.


ReplyThread Parent
imomus
imomus
imomus
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 06:01 pm (UTC)

This is a cheap "guilt by association" tactic. As usual, you work it into the argument without stopping to tell us what you think should be done on the issue. You're too busy trying to lay a "right wing if he does, right wing if he doesn't" double bind.

I basically take the UNESCO line on this issue. Are UNESCO right wing populists too? Would it be less right wing to say "Yay Hollywood! BLAM BLAM BLAM! And by the way, cut the subsidies to those artist scrounger types! And stop translating foreign muck!"


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 06:38 pm (UTC)

Easy. Give people good and fair access to education, so that they are less likely to like crap, wherever it comes from. If then they still favour hollywood (apparently a monolithic institution, and bad bad bad), then so be it. Maybe one then needs to look harder at the cultural factors that make it so popular.

der.


ReplyThread Parent
imomus
imomus
imomus
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 06:53 pm (UTC)

Regulation? Subsidy?


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Mar. 26th, 2007 08:36 pm (UTC)

Which surely are economic instruments?

Cultural as in: why is it that Hollywood is good at adressing the dreams. hopes, feelings of so many people? Because of the economic power of the studios?

der.


ReplyThread Parent