Home > music, philosophy, technology > How Technology is Destroying the Arts

How Technology is Destroying the Arts

https://i1.wp.com/schools-wikipedia.org/images/150/15041.jpg

Editors Note: For the purposes of this article, we will ignore the fact that the bulk of the profits for art have always been delivered mostly to the parasitic entities which surround the artists such as record companies, studios, promoters and distributors. We will assume the artists fraction is relatively constant, and ignore the fact that direct artist to consumer music publishing is now possible because of technology. Conversely, we will also ignore the fact that technology has allowed a proliferation of amateur artists to publish their art for free.

There is one unchanging feature about technology.  In a continuous process, the technology becomes ever smaller, faster, and cheaper.

150 years ago, if you wanted to hear a song, you had to hire live musicians. In buildings still standing, we see examples of old mansions, castles and the like where a studio was provided for musicians to perform, and the sound was vented throughout the estate. 150 years ago, if you wanted music you had to be an elite member of society who was able to afford to hire musicians to perform. All music heard was performed live by artists. Without technological progress it would be this way today.

Fast Forward-

The first video cassette recorders became available in the 1970’s. For the first time, this allowed consumers to watch movies at home. The same technology also allowed illegal copies of movies to be made and distributed.

The first computers came onto the scene in the early 1980’s. If you bought the super deluxe IBM model, it came with a hard disk about the size of a shoe box, which had enough storage capacity to store one or two modern mp3 songs.

Fast Forward-

Now only 30 years later you can store a lifetime collection of songs on something the size of your finger which you can keep on a keychain. You can even have it all stored right on your telephone. Countless people have digitized everything they own and listen to it anywhere they want.

The current state of the art allows you can store thousands of full length movies on a computer hard drive. You may not be able to carry them all around on a keychain yet, but that day will come soon enough.

It is no coincidence that as we have gone from 8 track tapes or cassettes and vinyl albums to ipods, that there has been a continuous decline in record sales.  In the old “analog” days, it was quite a time consuming feat to make a copy of a song. Furthermore, there was a degradation in the sound quality from every generation dub. If you wanted to listen to music, you had to either listen to it on the radio, buy the vinyl album, or buy the cassette tape. Because of the arduous task of copying, if you wanted to listen to your favorite artist at home and in your car, you had to purchase two copies. When you stepped on your album and cracked it, or when it wore out…when your 8 track player barfed up your tape after 20 plays….you had to go and pay the same amount all over again for a new copy. The cost of a given song then relative to income compared today was many times higher.

The key point to understand is that as we entered the digital realm of CD’s, mp3’s, computers file sharing, and now real time network streaming…and as technology has become faster, better, smaller, it has also become possible to duplicate 5 or 10 thousand songs in a few seconds. On a modern high speed network you can transfer the lifetimes work of any artist in a flash. You can browse and watch as many movies as you like on netflix as fast as you can press a button.

An entire lifetime of work….in 5 seconds. Think about that. An artist’s entire lifetime of production, or maybe a novel that took someone 10 years to write, moving from point a to point b in the blink of an eye. Think about a writer spending 5 or 10 years in front of a keyboard or typewriter, only to have the masterpiece transmitted to 100,000 people for free in an instant.

30 years ago with vinyl albums and tapes, this kind of duplication effort would have been a monumental task. It would have required an endless supply of expensive tapes, and when completed all the work would be inferior second generation copies. Copying a book was basically impossible.

So while copying personal music, movies or books for personal use may or may not be illegal, copying it for distribution clearly is illegal. That said, there will always be people around willing to use the technology for illegal purposes. This is also a constant. In spite of any law or protection mechanism that can be devised, there will always be an element willing to get around it. Because of this fact, the relentless march of technology will continue to drive down the value of art. There is no stopping it.

So at this point in time, the current state of the art in technology has already caused a proliferation of music. Does anyone remember riding their bicycle to a friends house to spend an hour listening to a Beatles record? When a middle school kid today can go over to his friends house and download 10,000 songs off of his keychain in 5 minutes, music proliferates. When file sharing services distribute the lifetimes work of an artist in a few seconds, the music becomes ubiquitous. Some of the younger generation today for example refuse to pay for music. With Pandora and on line streaming, there is so much choice this is now a valid option.

Does anyone remember the ubiquitous movie rental stores from two decades ago? The cost to rent a movie, not including gas and other incidentals was 2 or 3 dollars.

Today, a streaming netflix subscription costs 10 dollars a month with six allowed devices. If six people each watch one movie per day this is 180 movies a month or an average cost of 18 cents a movie.  What we can see from this is that the value of the art is declining due to technology.  When inflation is factored in, the real decline in price from 2 or 3 dollars to 18 cents is even more dramatic. This trend will continue unabated. The big media owners will attempt to stop it, or thwart it, but to no avail. So far, the new business model of suing their customers has not alleviated the problem.

Now we get back to supply and demand. If the music becomes ubiquitous, the price of the music or the value of the art goes down, however you want to look at it. As the value of the art goes down, there is less available profit for the artists to support themselves.

Today if you do a calculation that takes into account the amount of “free” (mostly illegal) music, the cost to legitimately download a song from itunes or equivalent, plus the giant proliferation of quasi legal offshore distribution sites, you come up with the average value of a hit song at about $.35 cents a copy (some fraction have paid $1.00, some have paid less, some have paid nothing).

Now lets take that .35 cents and talk about a “gold record”. Every artist strives to reach this pinnacle of success. According to the definition, a gold record is 500,000 copies. A platinum single is 2 million copies sold.

So lets go with that. Lets say as an artist you have struggled your entire career, and finally have a platinum single. Looked at another way, you have produced art that 2 million people want. At .35 cents a copy, that’s $700,000 dollars. Out of this $700,000, the cost of production, mixing and mastering, advertising and promotion, as well as distribution and channel sales, then finally wholesale and retail markup all have to be deducted. So this amount of money today isn’t going to buy a lot of rolls royces and learjets. Unless a profitable tour can be undertaken, this platinum recording probably becomes a loss.

It is no coincidence that the stables of the large record companies continue to decline and now support only a few broad appeal mega pop artists who have to be palatable to a mass audience. Otherwise, they are not a viable economic undertaking. Unfortunately for the patron of the arts, there is very little artistic value in this whole mass appeal contrived persona endeavor.

So in the case of illegal copying and downloading, the value of a lifetime of work for a one in a million talent is already reduced to zero. The cost of good quality high fidelity classical music from legitimate sources is already zero. It is no coincidence that symphonic orchestras are shuttering their doors around the world.

The point is that when there is less profit, there is less economic incentive to produce art. As there becomes ever less profit, there becomes ever less incentive. The art becomes economically not viable.

So without getting caught up in the details of the numbers, the important point is that as the technology becomes more advanced, for all these reasons the value of the art declines. As the value of the art declines, the number of artists which can be supported by quantity [x] of art declines.

As technology continues to advance,  how long will it be before you can have 10,000 movies on your keychain? At the present rate, maybe another decade.

What happens when we get to the point where technology would allow a copy of every movie ever made or every song ever written to be on your keychain?

What if you could go to a flea market and buy a keychain storage device with a copy of every movie ever made for $50? or $10. This would put the value of a movie at a few cents, and in many cases this would render the movie making process economically non viable.

If an underground character can buy a storage device for 5 dollars, and load a billion dollars of content he got for free to that, then resell it for ten dollars, he made 100 percent rate of return on capital. So it is the ability of the technology to do that, which drives the whole process.

Technology WILL make this happen. There is no law or treatise which will stop it. The technology will facilitate it, and there will always be an element willing to skirt the law or hack whatever protection can be devised. Because of this fact, the value of art in real terms, for any art which can be digitized and copied,  is destined to move ever lower. Maybe all aspiring artists should turn to sculpture?

The paradox-

Technology provided a “golden age”, where we went from having floor space in your living room for a quartet, to being able to electronically record a performance and duplicate it for the masses. This period has now passed. The profitability of all art is now declining.

So summarizing, what we can see now is that the price of a unit of art will continue to decline as technology progresses. This will be true for music, movies, artwork, photographs, fiction and non fiction books, or anything which can be digitized.  As the art and content becomes less and less commercially and economically viable, it can support fewer artists. As this happens, talented artists will enter other pursuits and endeavors because everyone has to eat. Collectively, this will reduce the quality of the art available, because some people who would have gone on to produce great art will instead choose a vocation that allows them to be fed.

The arts are dying. Technology is killing them.

For further reading about how technology is affecting our lives, please see Rise of the Machines.

 

Advertisements
Categories: music, philosophy, technology
  1. May 26, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Good art won’t die. It can’t. Just because things aren’t the same doesn’t mean that art will have any less impact in our lives. Artists need to change how they approach their craft. Artists should be able to think outside the box, and do something amazing in a way never thought of. Isn’t this supposed to be why creativity is such a valued trait? I argue that art needs this. It needs to be challenged so that it can grow.

    http://iforgotmyumbrella.wordpress.com/

  2. Haydees
    May 27, 2011 at 3:48 am

    Interesting stuff to think about. The most interesting part for me was thinking about what things will be like when you can have a copy of every movie ever made on your keychain. That’s a mini mind blower. Like you say though, it will happen eventually.

  3. Star
    May 27, 2011 at 4:03 am

    I’m picturing bricks in the toilets of a lot of media execs upon their reading of this examination lol.

  4. Trish
    May 27, 2011 at 4:05 am

    Is this why I’m listening to 50 year old Rolling Stones songs LOL?

  5. Skye
    May 28, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    How many drummers have been replaced by machines?

  6. AmandaP
    May 28, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    I’m playing a sad song on my violin.

  7. Dave
    May 28, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    I wish we lived in a world where persuing the arts was the ticket to a good life and the banksters were the ones riding in broken down Honda Civics.

  8. John
    May 28, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    Another outcome of this is that we now have the children of the rich becoming even more prevalent in the arts, as they have no need to have their art provide their sustenance.

  9. May 30, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Absurd! I’m writing this while streaming a violin concerto by JS Bach from a radio station in Venice Italy. In a few days I will be seeing (again) R Wagner’s “Die Walkure” from the Metropolitan Opera in HD at my local theater for only $20. It was spectacular the first time.
    Ed Jucevic, old mining engineer in Reno, NV.

  10. ArmchairEconomist
    May 31, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    If what you say is true, then the availability of good live music and theater should be decreasing and the price should be going up.

    Let me check.

    It is.

  11. Flatline
    June 3, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    I tried to give some CD’s away to my kids today. They didn’t want em. They said “no one uses CD’s any more”. LOL.

    They also echoed what you said in the article here, that “no one I know pays for music any more”. This is coming from young adults.

    The music industry model that we were all held captive to for decades has apparently crumbled.

  12. March 19, 2012 at 4:31 am

    One aspect not looked at: Would I buy all the movies/songs/books/etc. I do have? The answer is a BIG NO! Yes, they are only worth having if they are free and no I would never have spent the money on them if the only option was to pay for them.

    I also disagree that music houses/movie studios are losing money. I believe their profits are a LOT higher than in the days of the cartridge tape.

    One more thing: Hasn’t electronic distribution INCREASED the size of the market thousands-fold? Sure one can buy a song cheaper but how many more are now buying it????

    I think this article is talking too much “Copyright Math”; No there are NO $8 BILLION iPODS!!!

  13. spooz
    May 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Or artists could have more control than ever of profits as they cut out the record companies, promoters and retailers and sell direct to the consumers. Inexpensive recording hardware and software allow artists to record their own music and distribute it over the internet to a worldwide audience. It could be better than ever for artists. They also can make a lot of money on live performance and merchandise.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/business/tunecore-chief-shakes-up-music-with-his-own-words.html

  1. May 27, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: