CSotD: The Information Superhighway of Broken Dreams
Skip to comments
Last week, I praised Humon as an artist willing to try variety and new things.
Now the latest Tom the Dancing Bug makes an argument about the web as innovation killer, which, at first glance, seems counterintuitive. The promise of the web was that artists and musicians would no longer be in thrall to gatekeepers.
And that's true, but there's a lot of fine print involved.
I mean, ditto for the American Dream: For all the Captains of Industry who can say they landed on our shores with a carpet bag and a dream and rose to glory, there were hundreds of thousands of immigrants who landed on our shores with a carpet bag and a dream and never ended up with anything more than that, and millions and millions who never climbed beyond the Archie Bunker level of a modest home and a good but unremarkable life.
Similarly, the idea that you can throw your stuff up on the web and attract a following is awfully optimistic. The idea that it will go viral is optimistic to the point of being delusional.
Yes, it happens.
But, as I have always said of getting past the gatekeepers, it's like tossing a grape through an electric fan: It's possible, but holding up those few unsmashed grapes as an example is not representative of the probable outcome.
Whether you're trying to rise above the cattle calls and slush piles or to stand out in the merry chaos of the Internet, it's not all luck and timing, but it's not all talent and desire, either. And, as Bolling points out, if you find something that works, the impetus to stick with it is powerful indeed.
And to the extent that he disputes the lie that the Internet is a bustle of successful innovation, I really like this cartoon.
I also appreciate that he's in an excellent position to make the statement. As someone who came up in the alternative press and has had to adapt to the collapse of that medium as he shifted to the web, he has more credibility than either a mainstream syndicated cartoonist or an artist who hasn't quite made it.
Then again, let's not read too much into this.
Artists in all media make decisions all the time and always have.
Whatever Michelangelo wanted to paint, when Pope Julius II hired him to paint the ceiling, his choices became somewhat constrained. And it may well have been that the patronage was a happy partnership and that this was precisely what he wanted to paint anyway, and, if so, good for him.
But leave us not bullshit one another: This was work-for-hire. It was a gig.
Now, I'm no art historian, and I mean that sincerely, and I'm not sure about Picasso's inner workings, but I very much suspect that Dali slipped into a groove of art-as-entertainment. There is an element of exhibitionism in his work and his personna that suggest a hint of PT Barnum, not in the sense of being false but in the sense of being calculating and, if not cynical, at least pragmatic.
And greatly talented, yes. But you have to look to someone like Van Gogh for the purity of an artist who by-gawd does what he wants to and public recognition be damned.
It's unfortunate that the only reliable measure of purity is what you do when nobody rewards you for doing it, but once silver crosses your palm, it all becomes suspect.
The patron who picks up the tab so that the artist can do absolutely anything is rare, and it's worth noting that Sylvia Beach gave Joyce his start, but then went broke when he finally was successful enough to attract a commercial publisher.
And, going back to smashed grapes and immigrants with carpet bags, for every spouse who supported the great artist through their romantic years in the garrett, there are a thousand bitterly complaining about the feckless parasites they used to be married to.
Picasso pleased the right patrons and critics and they let him do whatever he wanted, which is different than the image Bolling presents of an artist working on the web but under the direction of a suit. But, honestly, whether it's a syndicate or a Pope or a clique of influential art critics and gallery owners, commercial success means putting yourself in someone else's hands.
Always has.
Always will?
While he may hate the click-bait of the commercial web, and its pervasive element of "meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss," Bolling is not turning his back on the Internet itself, and has attempted to secure his independence through building a network of crowd-support, as has Keith Knight, as has Chris Baldwin, as have any number of artists.
Presumably, a network of a thousand patrons keeps any one of them from leaning on you too hard, but that doesn't tell you how many will stick around if you try to escape a groove they expect.
We shall see. For my part, I figure you might as well do what you want to do, because it's just as easy to fail while pleasing yourself as it is to fail while you're trying to please other people.
Holy Juxtaposition!
I began this morning checking to see if my 11-year-old reporter had filed her story about the Denver Comic Con yet, and found she'd sent me this photo.
Then one of the first strips I encountered was Rhymes with Orange.
Coincidence? I think …
… um, yeah, I'm pretty sure it was just a coincidence.
But it was still a pretty strange way to start the day.
(And, in the words of John Sebastian, "That kid's gonna be awesome!")
Comments
Comments are closed.