The standard percentage of movie attendees is usually around 10% of the population. It's been that way, more or less, since the 1960s, bottoming out there after a gradual fall through the 40s and 50s. Thigh high-watermark for movie attendance was—perhaps not surprisingly—the 1930s, in the wake of the Great Depression. (Though this may also be attributed to the excitement over the advent of talkies, starting out with The Jazz Singer in 1927.)
But apparently it's not just the economy, it's also the films that studios are releasing in response to cultural desires: films that are, in one way or another, escapist. The article says:
The film industry appears to have had a hand in its recent good luck. Over the last year or two, studios have released movies that are happier, scarier or just less depressing than what came before. After poor results for a spate of serious dramas built around the Middle East (“The Kingdom,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Rendition”), Hollywood got back to comedies like “Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” a review-proof lark about an overstuffed security guard.
For someone whose life is dedicated to making art, the idea that Paul Blart is what society is looking for right now is troubling, a feeling driven home here: “A bunch of movies have come along that don’t make you think too much,” said Marc Abraham, a producer whose next film is a remake of “The Thing.” The article continues: "Cinematic quality has little to do with (financial success). The recent crop of Oscar nominees has fared poorly, for the most part, at the box office. Lighter fare has drawn the crowds."
This is perhaps the best sign of how the recession might directly impact me. Financially, I live on very little money, have no serious investments, and can't really get laid off. But if the audience for the type of art I feel it is important to make no longer demands what I can supply, well, that could be a problem. Soldier Songs, for example—though not about the Middle East—is a "serious drama" intended to "make you think," and the upcoming Dog Days, though a (black) comedy, does involve a family starving in the wake of a devastating (maybe nuclear) war. (Sunshine and Puppies!) I will be very interested to read between the lines of the reviews for performances of these works in the coming months, to see if this sentiment—that they are too serious for these serious times—is expressed.
And though it's not his fault, President Obama provides a double-whammy for this scenario. I was recently talking to my friend Dallas (whose new record is quite good). He was discussing the correlation between the popularity of metal and political power cycles. When the Republicans are in office, he said, metal thrives as a genre. But when Democrats are in office, it fizzles. The reason? People are simply less angry under Democrats, (or so he says…personally, I think I’m equally angry under each).
He claimed that during the Clinton administration, Slayer—one of the greatest of all time—couldn't get anywhere near the top of the Billboard 200 charts. During the Bush administration, however, their Christ Illusion debuted at #5. (Who was at the top of the charts during the Clinton years? Hootie & The Blowfish, who were #1 twice, in 1994 and 1996, #5 in 1998!)
A quick look around the Billboard charts suggests that it's a little more complex than this, and metal is certainly not a genre that is going to cast as broad a net as pop. (That’s part of what metal is about anyway: insider/outsider tension.) But it's still interesting to consider what might have shifted culturally to have Slayer in the same Billboard slot that Hootie & The Blowfish had held eight years earlier.
Compare this 1996 performance by Hootie and The Blowfish, which makes Lionel Richie look like G.G. Allin...
...to Slayer's 2006 take on PTSD; timely and intense. (Warning: some graphic images.)
The influence of metal is a big part of my work, as is the desire to encourage thought and questioning. If the above is in fact true, I’m not sure that what I can offer an audience artistically is really what they want right now, though it might be what they need. I guess I'll just make what I need to make, and they can catch up to me when the smoke clears, and they’ve seen one Paul Blart too many.
Posts
9 comments:
I dunno, I've always felt that recessions and tough times are good for the arts. They may not be good for funding of the arts, but they give people a lot of emotion to work with, anger or otherwise. Arguably the best time for American cinema was during the 70s, during war, recession, massive crime-waves, wide-spread political corruption. While there was more than enough vapidity to go around (disco, sitcoms, etc.) we had remarkable films by Scorsese, Coppola, Cimino, Allen, Lumet (and so many others) dominating the Oscars; we had the birth of metal and punk; we essentially had our country's feelings of anger, helplessness, and nihilism manifest themselves through tons of great art. Then came the decadence of the 80s and metal became glam, punk became new wave, and challenging film dramas became popcorn pulp adventures with mass appeal. And then the late 80s/early 90s recession and we get good hip hop and alternative topping the charts and the mainstreaming of "indie" cinema. Late 90s Dot Com Bubble = Backstreet Boys and Spice Girls...
The years ahead are gonna tough as hell for funding, but I think a great time for DIY projects.
Oh, artistically you're totally right. I guess I should have mentioned that I was speaking mostly of the mainstream, where none of us really thrive anyway! Down times are the best for new work. Since no one is buying anyway, the pressure of the market is removed, and with it goes the schlock that is rolled out just to meet the market's demand. And so artists to just do their thing.
Actually, there was just an interesting Times article about this too! Perhaps I should have included it in the original post.
Ah, I see what you mean. Part of me is actually a little excited for our little depression. Lower rents and more artistic freedom! I just may have to get a job...
David, I don't personally know you or Mafoo and I wonder if either of you think that if an artist holds down a full time 9 to 5 job with benefits - are they somehow 1.) less "serious" about their own work and/or 2.) less creative and productive than an artist who doesn't work 9 to 5?
I don't mean this to be a loaded question, but some of what you bring up in your original post and my questions above (and you can probably guess my answer to both...or maybe not...) have come up in recent discussions I've had in the flesh with my fellow artists.
Speaking for myself, I tracked and mixed the bulk of a major CD project during a long stretch of unemployment. On the other hand, these days, even with a full time gig, I seem to be busier than ever as a composer and just as inspired.
I think what I'm getting at is this: I don't buy into the paradigm of what it means to be a "serious" artist in the 21st century. The whole "starving artist" label is a derogatory term used by THE MAN to keep us down. Don't equate lack of money, no health insurance, and/or urban blight with the creation of "serious" art. Sometimes being poor (and I can speak about this as a kid who grew up on food stamps, welfare, etc) just sucks. It's hard, stressful, and doesn't really mean you have a whole lot of extra time for artistic pursuits.
I don't mean to oversimplify your post (and I realize I'm going off a bit here from your original points) or put words in your mouth. I just want to chime in as someone outside of your network with these thoughts.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for reading, and for your comments. To respond: I was just putting some ideas out there regarding recent cultural/economic shifts, the resultant impact on the arts in general, and how this may (or may not) impact reception to my own work, which tends to deal with serious topics. I neither intended to define what constitutes “serious” art, nor a “serious” artist, which I think has little to do with whether or not one has a day job. To be a serious artist is to be serious about ones work, period. I think how one supports oneself is an entirely separate matter. (That second Times article to which I linked above has some interesting bits about the tradition of artists having day jobs—“van Gogh the preacher, Pollock the busboy, Henry Darger the janitor”.)
As for equating lack of money/insurance, etc. with the creation of “serious” art, I think that was actually Mafoo's point. I interpreted it more in terms of socio-economic trends and their impact on the arts, specifically in New York in the last century. (I’ll let him chime in here if he wants.) In those terms, a down-turned economy created scenarios from which art we love emerged, though times were miserable. Once the economy recovers, the art created during this period is often romanticized, co-modified, re-packaged, and sold, because people can now afford to buy it, and want to own a part of the new Bohemia they read about in Time. (Sorry, I know this might sound a little jaded, but it seems to be a pretty reliable pattern.) So, it isn’t so much that a recession is good for the artist, but rather, good for Art. And I guess if we consider the co-modification stage of the process, it’s good for the economy, too! It’s like Trickle-UP economics!
I think that recessions, and hard times in general, effect even those who are financially comfortable. If there is a general downturn in the economy, all but the most established and popular artists will lose avenues for funding their art, be it by grant, commission, sale, etc. I believe David's point was that this lack of external demand can encourage artists to indulge themselves, which can often create more unique work than art created to satisfy someone else.
I wonder if either of you think that if an artist holds down a full time 9 to 5 job with benefits - are they somehow 1.) less "serious" about their own work and/or 2.) less creative and productive than an artist who doesn't work 9 to 5?
I think anyone who would claim that having a 9 to 5 makes an artists work inherently less creative would be insane. Charles Ives would be a great example of someone who had a non-musical gig and made art that was incredibly unique. His financial security freed him to make unique art, relatively free of 'market pressure'.
Thanks guys for responding! Mafoo's (I keep wanting to type Mofo - sorry...) point is well taken re: recessions affecting those who are financially comfortable. I thought we were in a recession six or seven years ago when you couldn't get a decent temp gig in NYC to save your life! If you're used to being frugal, you can ride out the tough times (now that's a BROAD generalization but I am basing it on my own life experience).
CB
"If there is a general downturn in the economy, all but the most established and popular artists will lose avenues for funding their art, be it by grant, commission, sale, etc..."
Then again, I'm not so sure if I agree with that. I had a grant award delayed by a month and a half due to the current crisis. And every musician I know (personally has lost work gigging right after January 1, 2009.
Mofo. Has AWS and their activities been affected by this current economy? Or are you as a group able to ride this out given your overhead and some careful programming decisions? May be none of my business...
Re AWS: Oh, absolutely. We recently lost large grant weeks prior to our Russia tour, which we had to scurry to cover in other ways. We've also had several concerts canceled (including one at Carnegie for this season!). We're trying to be smart about it though, programming some easier sells for the next couple seasons (such as Aphex Twin). I'm confident we'll pull through, but I think we'll be seeing quite a few ensembles in trouble (we already are!).
An interesting side-idea this discussion has me thinking of though: does recession and economic hardship encourage more individuality/self-indulgence in art? To reuse my former example, the artistic success of 70s cinema was based largely on the auteur aesthetic. As one who adheres to Randian concepts of art - if not economics :) - the silver-lining of this impending recession is somewhat encouraging. I consider myself primarily a digital artist, in that most of my creative output is through my laptop and controlled by me, from composition, through recording, to mastering. The coinciding of the recession and the recent revolution in home recording/music creation seems almost heaven-sent. I'm kinda an optimist though...
P.S. Mofo lol...
Post a Comment