The Power of Scarcity: A Response to Mike and Scott

So Don writes a post. 

Then I write a post. 

Then Mike Daisey and Scott Walters chime in.

And suddenly we got ourselves a tag team brawl where Don and I play the part of the Road Warriors and Mike and Scott playing the role of the Hart Foundation.  And yes, that is a very old school wrestling reference but what the hell, it's Friday . . . let's have some fun.

--------------------------------------------------------

In their haste to bash my comparison of the poker world to the much more noble world of the professional artist Mike and Scott miss a few of my broader points, such as this one:

2.  They understand the world they are in and how to thrive in it. - You think making a living as an artist sucks?  Try making it as a poker player.  But the profitable players don't complain about the environment.  They thrive in it.  In fact, they wouldn't have it any other way because if everyone could be a professional poker player . . . there wouldn't be any money in it.

Money is what we are talking about right?  When we talk about artists making a living wage, being able to feed their families, retire, go on vacations, we are talking about money and what decisions should an artist make (or not have to make) in order to get some.

In this complex economic world we now live in, which is dynamically different then the one that existed just 10 years ago my theory is that the only thing that really creates money/wealth/value is scarcity, which Websters defines as "something in short supply."

So if you want to make a really decent living doing ANYTHING now, people have to believe that there is something about working with you that you can't get working with just anyone.

If you haven't been able to carve out that distinct niche for yourself, either in the work you do, how you do the work, or who you do the work for . . . then you are officially a commodity and you will be treated like one, meaning you will get paid just enough to keep you working but never enough to be stable.

It's true for doctors, lawyers, plumbers and artists . . . there is nothing sacred about the artistic profession that makes it different.

I used poker as an example of this because to be successful in it over the long haul you have to develop some form of scarcity in the midst of an incredibly hostile environment.  Because in a poker tournament damn near everything is against you.

The other players want your money.

The structure of the tournament is designed to force you to make decisions early on instead of doing what you really want to do . . . which is wait for good cards.

And then there's the harsh luck factor which means you could do everything right and still lose.

So when I make the poker and art analogy, I'm not really comparing artists and poker players  . . . I'm talking about the difficult environment both face and how each side has to develop unique skills to thrive in it.

But here's the thing . . . not everyone will develop those skills.  That's just a fact.

Those who do develop those skills will eventually be the ones we call winners.

Those who don't will be the ones we call losers . . . or dead money.

Do you need some examples of people who have developed the skills?  I got two good ones.

Scott Walters and Mike Daisey.

Scott and Mike are both artists and each one has carved out a path that has allowed them some artistic freedom (certainly not a perfect amount but some)

Scott's a tenured prof and an artist.  Tenure is a system built on scarcity (not all professors get it)

Mike has done a brilliant job of taking his artistic talents, mixing it with entreprenurial skills and creating a niche.  Maybe he didn't plan it that way, but that is what happened.

Now the question becomes, should Scott and Mike have to go through all the damn struggle to find a path to keeping art in their day to day lives?  Shouldn't it be easier to make it as an artist?

Yes, it absolutely should be easier.  But it will never, ever, be easy.

And as much as people saying they want it to be easy . . . they really don't mean it.

Because if everyone could make it as a professional artist . . . there wouldn't be any money in it.

 

Comments

[Scott Walters]

Yes, Andrew, I read "The World Is Flat," too. You are talking about finding a way to "make it" in the world as it exists; Mike and I are saying the system is broken, consequently it is self-destructing, and the only way to save it is to change it. Mike has figured out a way to make it, which is good for him, but he is interested in making it good for more people.

I am interested in the health of the art form, which is based on the health of the artists in the art form. And what I see is a system that flushes out people just when they are developing understanding, wisdom, and quality. But they give it up, because they get tired of not having a real life, they get tired of worrying about the appendicitis that they don't have health insurance to cover, they get tired of working a day job and then doing theatre. And so they think: shit, I could live a better life doing something else; or else they think: I'd really like to make a contribution before I die, I think I'll become a special education teacher (a real life example from a very talented friend of mine who gave up after 25 years of going at it).

This isn't a game, it is lives. And it is about an art form on its last legs.

[RebeccaZ]

It's SO not on its last legs, my friends. C'mon. After business, the arts are what current college students are enrolling in the most.

I like the blackjack analogy because it gets down to brass tacks and I think it's quite an accurate description.

Life is a game, in my humble opinion. Artists choose to play the hand they're dealt and spin their wheel and place their bet. So does everyone.

[Don Hall]

And it is about an art form on its last legs.

Wow. That's just about the most arrogant hyperbole I recall reading anywhere...

[Rex Winsome]

A certain kind of theatre is on it's last legs. The theatre that depends on donations from faux aristocrats is dying as the faux aristocrats grow old and die.

Mike and Scott are saying that major changes need to happen. If you look at it one way their problem is that arts administrators are focusing on bleeding those soon-to-be-corpses dry rather than recruiting new audiences by nurturing the talent of the artists.

Don and Andrew seem to be saying those changes CAN'T be made.

I'm saying the changes are already happening, and they are more radical than the return to the regional theatre system that Mike is looking for and more actual than the theories Scott is talking about. Scratch the surface a bit and you'll find that there's a rich underground art scene that might not be providing health insurance or living wages either, but unlike the institutional model, it's growing, and it's radically different enough that it can turn Don and Andrew's world upside down.

[Mike Daisey]

I'm not advocating a return to the regional theater system in such a straightjacketed way, and nothing that's happening underground precludes change on an institutional level.

Also, I responded to the post here:

http://www.mikedaisey.com/2008/07/i-sometimes-speak-at-futurist.sht

[Rex Winsome]

Mike, i agree, there's nothing mutually exclusive about reforming the big institutions and fulmenting revolution in the underground, the two can work together. I think the underground revolution is going to eclipse any surface reform, but i'm not so stubborn as to push compromisers into the marsh because, I might be wrong. All solutions should be applied at once, whatever sticks creates a foundation for whatever comes next. None of us need to succeed individually for all of us to succeed collectively.

I'm sorry if my understanding of what you're advocating is inaccurate. I haven't been able to see the show and have hodge podged my understanding of your view together based on what is available on your blog and elsewhere.

[RVCBard]

FWIW, I think "Andrew's" name is Adam.

[Scott Walters]

I have nothing against any theatre that provide creative activity and don't provide a living wage and health insurance. Historically, such theatres have been the ones that were catalysts for change. My focus, however, is on the development of a model that does pay a living wage and health insurance. As you note, these are not mutually exclusive.