Re: Design principles and ethics

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Thu, 4 May 2006 15:41:23 -0600,
"Christopher Nelson" <address@hidden> wrote:
> While it is true that some people perform because they love whatever it
> is they do, on the pragmatic side, the largest lure for most is fame and
> fortune.  Granted, most do not make it, but if that lure was not there,
> far fewer would be interested in the pursuit.

You are making a strong statement about the desires and goals of "most
people" that perform.  It's incredible to me, because the people I
know that do perform (and those whose biography I know something
about) have a quite different character from what you describe.  So,
sorry, but I have to ask: What's your evidence?

Maybe you are only talking about a small subset of performers (pop
stars, or German Volkslieder, or what).  If so, you probably should
qualify.

> I say this not because I think that the pursuit of fame and fabulous
> wealth is a good thing, but to illustrate the fallicy that I feel you
> are falling prey to when looking at the raw statistics.

Let me give you two more sentences from the raw statistics, that so
far in the discussion is the only evidence we have:

"Of those who earn a wage or salary, almost two-thirds were employed
by religious organizations and almost one-fourth by performing arts
companies such as professional orchestras, small chamber music groups,
opera companies, musical theater companies, and ballet
troupes. Musicians and singers also perform in nightclubs and
restaurants and for weddings and other events."

Does this description sound to you like a bunch of people on the run
for becoming wealthy and rich?

> > Lawrence Lessig analyzed in his book Free Culture how "big 
> > media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and 
> > control creativity"
> > (this is the subtitle).  Never before in history of mankind 
> > did so few control so much of our culture as today.  This, 
> > not the lack of monetary compensation, is what inhibits 
> > creativity.  This is the obstacle that has to be removed to 
> > allow people to be more creative, to produce more content 
> > that is more relevant to people.  The claim that reproduction 
> > fees are good for artists is a sham.
> 
> Reproduction fees are good for *successful* artists.  People make money
> off of giving other people what they want.  So while it is true that a
> few wealthy individuals have a lot of control over culture, they
> wouldn't be wealthy if they weren't giving people what they wanted.  

I think that analysis is seriously flawed.  It is well known in the
industry since the 1920s that demand can be created by careful
manipulation of the population, via advertisment and mass media like
radio (at that time) and TV (today).  As the big industry owns all
major and most minor distribution channels, and carefully controls
what the majority of the people (who rely on these distribution
channels almost exclusively) gets to see, I don't think at all that
what people get is what they want.  That's a myth.  People in the
industry know it better, and they are exploiting the mechanisms that
work in their favor very consciously.

The history of propaganda is seldom taught (did you cover it in
school?  We didn't.) but very instructive.  Starting out in the 1890s,
and then in the 1920s and 1930s, propaganda was advocated by the
intellectual elite as a "necessary technique to overcome the danger of
democracy" (Chomsky).  In second world war, the power of the concept
was demonstrated not only in Germany by Hitler and Goebbels, but also
in America, where Walter Lippman (Journalist, "Public Opinion", 1922)
and Edward Bernay (psychologist) were hired by Woodrow Wilson to
manipulate the US public so that it would support engagement of the US
in the second world war.  The campaign was so successful that it left
a lasting impression in the business world.  Lippman and Bernay
single-handedly created a new industry branch: Public Relations.
Today, the PR industry world-wide creates 4.3 billion dollar in
revenues (2001), and the revenues for advertising in in the US go into
the hundreds of billion dollars.  It is instructive to compare these
numbers to the budgets of US departments.  This money is not wasted.
Propaganda works (even if you don't believe in it).

> Let me add that I personally feel that they give people what they
> *think* they want, or else think they *should* want.  But that is a
> spiritual/moral point.

It's not at all a spiritual or moral point.  I assumed that we are
talking about monetary compensation for people who create art that
actually matters to people.  For this, we have to look beyond what
happens on TV.

Thanks,
Marcus