Paul Helliwell unveils the hidden cost of the Faustian pact with free information. “The demand to pay for music is being resituated as active consumption – if you love your band you’ll pay. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the future of the music industry, it is, in its lack of anything material to sell, relational aesthetics, and the institution that will enable this is not the record companies or the art galleries but Web 2.0. The moral of the story is be careful what you ask for.” Metamute | Zombie flash mob
4 Comments
If this isn't a legitimate "art" OR "culture" article, what is? I'm puzzled by the exclusion. If there's someone here that could explain this one to me I'd appreciate it.
related | related NYT - Artist 2.0
just need to read it, but of course your taste really needs no questioning at this point.
Few too many names dropped if you ask me... and I'm also skeptical with the opening premise that the age of paying for music as a commodity is almost over. I guess all of the Adorno-talk should have tipped me off, but claiming that advances in technology will automatically lead to the de-commodification of art sounds a little to Marxist to me. Right after saying that the author begins to describe subscription services, and besides paying for access to music what about the market for stereos, headphones, and home computers?
Ah. Thanks John. Thought it fell through the oubliette.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.