A lot of industry people think of art as a zero sum game. In Hollywood, it kinda has been. Someone else gets the staff writer job, so you don't. I hope the economic and distribution model can innovate as well as the creative tooling does!
Great piece Jagger. I’m old enough to remember this scenario playing out in the music business with synthesizers in the 70’s (no one’s gonna use real orchestras again!) sampling in the 80’s and MP3’s in the 90’s & early aughts. Photoshop & CGI on the visual side had similar issues.
What people never seem to realize is that when new tech comes along it doesn’t just make it easier to make traditional art, it opens the door for creative people to make completely new & different art.
Some of the critiques have good points. Ai art really does become “copying” sometimes and those original artist need to be compensated.
There is a lot that needs to be sorted out. My own thoughts on it are continually evolving.
As I write more about this, I realize most of my reflection is about how these tools align with a huge unmet need — filmmakers are uniquely positioned in that developing our portfolio of work, or even creating a proof of concept (especially with genre/sci fi/horror) comes at such a high cost we’ve historically had to sit around waiting for someone to give us money before we can even start. That’s the part I aim to highlight.
Honestly, saving this for later because I can’t bring myself to read it now.
The sentiment behind Mad Men quote is something I spend every day contending with—it’s a real thing. I think about it often, as well the storyline about Harry’s mainframe installation and the psych expert.
It’s nearly 5 on a Monday, so I’m looking forward to reading this when I’m in a better mindset. 😄 But yes, “gave us a glimpse of the future” they did indeed.
I’m really sorry. I hope you don’t think my snottiness was aimed at you. My feeling about “Mad Men” is that a guy as talented and creative as Don Draper has got to have two or three other things he really wants to do and he’s wasting his time. And the executives don’t hate him, they just see him as some kind of freak. Anyway, my Mom and Brother In Law just had a huge fight and I don’t the energy to have a meaningful discussion about “The Big Bang Theory”. Adios.
The Mad Men analogy is not entirely apt, because they existed at a time when creative work (as if advertising is really creative) was still somewhat independent of the corporate sensibility. But Andy Warhol would soon merge the two. Back then, the intellectual was still independent of universities.
In other words, the distinctions you make between professional storytellers and amateurs is not so stark. Three generations have passed, who grew up not on books, radio and cinema but on TV and comic books. Literature no longer informs us; we no longer refer to it. The days of Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, James Baldwin and others on popular TV has been over. A forty year old has never seen it. That's why so may of them think Quentin Tarrantino is art. The old guard film people dismissed TV, until it took over. Now, you shrug at the proliferation of home movie makers, when, in fact, you should be concerned that professionals will sink yet again to their level in order to survive.
I don’t shrug at home movie makers at all — rather the opposite. I look forward to seeing what people create with these tools.
My peers are afraid that user generated content is going to replace traditionally shot film & tv. I say, there is no fundamental conflict between these two things. They can co-exist.
You ignored what I said. Coexistence is not a choice, but to accept it without criticism is simply conformity dressed up to look like strength. My concern is with the inevitable leveling down and the glut of material which has closed doors in the past and will again.
Ok, I happen to disagree. The “leveling down” will be balanced out by high quality content. There is a glut of material flooding the music industry, but high quality music is still being created too.
Personally speaking, I don’t share your concern here — and it sounds like you’d be better off not reading my content, if you gain absolutely nothing from it at all 👋✌️
The music industry is horrendous when it comes to quality. What “quality “ films are out there? Of course, I don't know what you call quality, or what perspective you have . Did you see the 80's, the 70's?
As for your content, isn't disagreement the beginning of conversation? The object is to give and take, not merely to announce and repeat.
A lot of industry people think of art as a zero sum game. In Hollywood, it kinda has been. Someone else gets the staff writer job, so you don't. I hope the economic and distribution model can innovate as well as the creative tooling does!
Right!
We need a distribution model that doesn’t exist *yet* 👀
Great piece Jagger. I’m old enough to remember this scenario playing out in the music business with synthesizers in the 70’s (no one’s gonna use real orchestras again!) sampling in the 80’s and MP3’s in the 90’s & early aughts. Photoshop & CGI on the visual side had similar issues.
What people never seem to realize is that when new tech comes along it doesn’t just make it easier to make traditional art, it opens the door for creative people to make completely new & different art.
Some of the critiques have good points. Ai art really does become “copying” sometimes and those original artist need to be compensated.
But don’t throw the baby out with the bath.
100%
There is a lot that needs to be sorted out. My own thoughts on it are continually evolving.
As I write more about this, I realize most of my reflection is about how these tools align with a huge unmet need — filmmakers are uniquely positioned in that developing our portfolio of work, or even creating a proof of concept (especially with genre/sci fi/horror) comes at such a high cost we’ve historically had to sit around waiting for someone to give us money before we can even start. That’s the part I aim to highlight.
Always cool seeing your new work btw! 🚀
The scarcity mindset is one of the most destructive modern thoughts. A win for someone else doesnt necessarily mean a loss for you.
Honestly, saving this for later because I can’t bring myself to read it now.
The sentiment behind Mad Men quote is something I spend every day contending with—it’s a real thing. I think about it often, as well the storyline about Harry’s mainframe installation and the psych expert.
It’s nearly 5 on a Monday, so I’m looking forward to reading this when I’m in a better mindset. 😄 But yes, “gave us a glimpse of the future” they did indeed.
Great insights Jagger!
We. don’t want to do what you do and we think you’re just silly
Thanks! 🙏 have a good day
I’m really sorry. I hope you don’t think my snottiness was aimed at you. My feeling about “Mad Men” is that a guy as talented and creative as Don Draper has got to have two or three other things he really wants to do and he’s wasting his time. And the executives don’t hate him, they just see him as some kind of freak. Anyway, my Mom and Brother In Law just had a huge fight and I don’t the energy to have a meaningful discussion about “The Big Bang Theory”. Adios.
The Mad Men analogy is not entirely apt, because they existed at a time when creative work (as if advertising is really creative) was still somewhat independent of the corporate sensibility. But Andy Warhol would soon merge the two. Back then, the intellectual was still independent of universities.
In other words, the distinctions you make between professional storytellers and amateurs is not so stark. Three generations have passed, who grew up not on books, radio and cinema but on TV and comic books. Literature no longer informs us; we no longer refer to it. The days of Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, James Baldwin and others on popular TV has been over. A forty year old has never seen it. That's why so may of them think Quentin Tarrantino is art. The old guard film people dismissed TV, until it took over. Now, you shrug at the proliferation of home movie makers, when, in fact, you should be concerned that professionals will sink yet again to their level in order to survive.
I don’t shrug at home movie makers at all — rather the opposite. I look forward to seeing what people create with these tools.
My peers are afraid that user generated content is going to replace traditionally shot film & tv. I say, there is no fundamental conflict between these two things. They can co-exist.
You ignored what I said. Coexistence is not a choice, but to accept it without criticism is simply conformity dressed up to look like strength. My concern is with the inevitable leveling down and the glut of material which has closed doors in the past and will again.
Ok, I happen to disagree. The “leveling down” will be balanced out by high quality content. There is a glut of material flooding the music industry, but high quality music is still being created too.
Personally speaking, I don’t share your concern here — and it sounds like you’d be better off not reading my content, if you gain absolutely nothing from it at all 👋✌️
The music industry is horrendous when it comes to quality. What “quality “ films are out there? Of course, I don't know what you call quality, or what perspective you have . Did you see the 80's, the 70's?
As for your content, isn't disagreement the beginning of conversation? The object is to give and take, not merely to announce and repeat.