How Superstardom Discourages the Cultivation of New Creative Talent
Accordion player Isabel Douglass plays with San Francisco-based 'Rupa and the April Fishes' at Left Coast Live in San Jose, California (photo, Patrick Lydon | sociecity)
We are both amazingly fortunate, and woefully unfortunate to live this day, in a world where superstardom exists. Over the past several decades, the exploitation of talent as practiced by the modern entertainment industry has effectively demolished the ability for talented artists to make a living. The silver lining which puts us in a slightly more fortunate position, is that this exploitation has effectively begun a reversal, largely thanks to modern technology and the ability for artists to create and share their work cheaply and easily.
But is a the “self-publishing” and “self-producing” system run by the people any better than this giant behemoth of an industry? Certainly not if its proprietors have the same aims as the industry…
The “Village” Mentality
Let’s take it back to a time when superstardom had no weight in the world of music and art, where small groupings of people rejoiced in and supported their own local artists. I call this the “Village” mentality.
When the modern agricultural-based society began to flourish — and communities of people grew larger and were afforded more and more “free” time — the arts took hold not only as a way to entertain, but to communicate and explain the human condition in ways not previously possible. It was during this time that the idea of the importance of the arts (music, dance, visual, and other expressive forms) became accepted as a required part of a “good” life.
The Village mentality meant that each village supported their talented artists and artisans as such, and allowed them to live and be supported by the village in order that they should do their art and perfect their craft. It didn’t always mean that they were supported to sit in a cabin and solely practice their craft, but that the village understood the importance of creativity and talent, and would work to help support and nurture that talent for the good of the village. As a consequence of this Village mentality, it would appear that the world had a great number of artists who were supported well enough to maintain and further their craft.
Superstardom, on the other hand, sees the entire world as a village. This concept could quite possibly be acceptable if it were handled in a responsible way. But that’s not the nature of the worldwide entertainment industry.
Today, superstardom encourages the idea that only a very few in the world are talented enough to make a living from music, visual art, dance, or acting. The irony is not only in the fact that many amazingly talented individuals don’t “make it,” but that many of the ones who do “make it” are not the best, but are merely the ones who are both lucky and just “good enough.” That’s fine, but if this the case, then everyone who is good enough could be supported. Impossible?
Funding Superstardom in the Music Industry (illustration: Patrick Lydon | sociecity)
Using music as an example, in order to make it to the top, musicians must allow themselves to be controlled by an industry which is focused on making income from their talent. It sounds like a good deal for these few individuals, but the reality is that Joe Superstar alone, supports a giant industry of marketers, commercial sponsors, booking companies, giant venues, record company executives, and office workers solely based off the commercialization and exploitation of his talent (see illustration at right). In a sense, the greed and thirst for stardom fuels the greed of hundreds of other individuals who may not be talented, but are perfectly happy to make a living off of exploiting talented individuals and feeding them to the masses.
As consumers, we buy into the idea that superstars aren’t everywhere. We buy into the idea that the best will be found if they really are “that good.”
Then we sit in front of the tele and watch a 50-year-old women who has lived in obscurity all of her life belt out songs that bring us to tears. Susan Boyle is an example of someone who was “found” by the entertainment industry, a few decades late. After her appearance on Britan’s Got Talent, Boyle spent several days in a mental institution and now battles with life as a public figure. Is she better off now that her talent has been commoditized? Now that she has been subjected to public scrutiny on a global scale?
Boyle didn’t have her village for the first half-century of her life, and she still doesn’t to this day. There is no close-knit community which is invested in her talent and personal well-being, there is only a global cast of people who are either enthralled by her story, or enthralled by the fact that they can make money from her story.
The reality is that our “system” to find talent and bring it to the masses is not just broken, it’s completely wrong in the first place.
Little do most of us know that the people who produce shows such as “Britan’s Got Talent” and “American Idol” are the very people who have created a world where it is nearly impossible to follow your dream of producing work as a talented creative individual without working against all odds for your entire life in order to do it.
Superstardom. Who Needs It?
The creators of superstardom have thrown the majority of the creative world into a ditch, all the while running around, trumpeting the Superstars they’ve manufactured, making millions for themselves along the way. Ask an industry-supported artist and you’re likley to find that, out of the millions that are made from their talents, a very small fraction of a percent ever actually gets to their wallets. The majority of the money made is filtered through giant entities which promote ideas like Superstardom. Do away with this industry-supported superstardom, and the insanely large amounts of money which currently go into global promotion, products and management, could instead be going directly to thousands of local acts and their local management, playing and making livings in their backyards.
Funding Village Stardom in the Local Music Industry (illustration: Patrick Lydon | sociecity)
No more middle men, no more superstars that travel the world playing for millions of people. If you want to see your favorite group from Australia… why not plan a trip to Australia and see them at the local concert hall or pub instead of in a football stadium?
Our current format of introducing and supporting creatively talented individuals by exploiting them on a global scale is by and large a complete waste of time and resources.
From the point of view of the artist, and their fans — who, we assume want to hear and see a true and untainted version of that artist — it would be far more beneficial to keep even the best talent local. It would be far more beneficial to let many many individuals shine and hone their skills instead of picking a select few that will appeal to the masses, watering down their talent, diluting their message, and making them global-industry-supporting-fancy-pants commodities. But it can’t be done by musicians alone, the fans of good music must also join suit.
In the end, it takes a Village.
