From here:
Does crowdsourced funding represent the future of the arts? If so, is that good or bad?
I think it’s wonderful Let the people fund what they like directly. After seeing the way the OoTS pledge drive took off, I’m totally on-board with Kickstarter.
Probably not the entire future, but a segment of it.
Bad overall, since it means that projects get funded based upon how well they’re publicized, not the potential quality and talent. If zombie films are what people want, zombie films will be made this way, but that doesn’t help artists who don’t want to make zombie films.
Substitute any subgenre or style for “zombie films” in the previous sentence. Ultimately it favors popularity over quality – and popularity contests tend to go to the tried and true.
Big question: how many users to they have? If it’s a few hundred, $150 million is a pretty good way of funding. If it’s ten million, it’s pretty poor.
From the article itself, it seems like the Kickstarter guys themselves are conflicted about whether their crowdfunding model should supersede the NEA, but lean towards the idea that it should serve as a complementary method of funding the arts:
Regardless, I think Kickstarter’s success is a great thing. I’ve contributed to three Kickstarter projects this year, all of which have been successfully funded. The fact is that there’s no penalty for trying - IIRC, if your project fails to attain the required level of funding, you’re more than welcome to retool it and resubmit. There’s an element of publicizing, to be sure, but the big success stories seem to be coming more from word of mouth than any concerted effort by Kickstarter projects to market themselves (after all, if they had the means to publicize through traditional means, they probably wouldn’t be trying to obtain funding through Kickstarter).
Kickstarter is pretty cool, but there’s already plenty of avenues to fund pop culture. I don’t really see what they do as being in competition with the NEA in any meaningful sense.
It does seem to be more complementary than a replacement. Having more sources of funding is good; it helps keep the arts being twisted to fit the prejudices of a narrow group. NEA + crowdsourcing is less narrow than either alone.
Kickstarter serves a different purpose from the NEA, and it would be a horrible mistake to cut funding to the NEA because of the existence of Kickstarter.
But as long as that doesn’t happen, I really don’t see a downside.
Is anyone actually talking about cutting the NEA because of Kickstarter?
It was amazing seeing what happened when Double Fine used Kickstarter to fund their next adventure game. I think they made their goal in the first eight hours and currently have over five times the amount they asked for! It’s gotten the rumors of a Psychonauts sequel all stirred up again.
Is there ever a time when people aren’t looking to cut the NEA? For any reason whatsoever?
Did Shakespeare ever get a grant? Nope. He was funded by the crowds that came to see his plays.
So I’m all for letting the people fund what they want to see. Sure, some of it may be crap or mediocre, but so is 95% of anything, anyway.
Actually, yes. His theater company was called The King’s Men. Who do you think was signing their checks?
In countries outside of the US, that’s a good thing. Those countries that don’t have Hollywood tend not to make things that are “popular” and instead end up only getting funding if it’s “important” or “culturally significant” which nobody ends up seeing. Popular makes money. Money makes more projects.
Also, Kickstarter is literally to “kickstart” a project. Ever after, ideally, they ought to then be self-perpetuating.
It’s a good thing. In its own right, obviously, it means that things that people want to get made are more likely to get made. As a replacement for government art grants, it means people are giving their own money to artists they want to support, instead of having the government decide what is good art and who should get your money.
How is this more than a way of soliciting charitable donations (that is new and shiny for now, but will soon be as old as having a can of coins rattled in your face)?
It is closer to a pre-order system. If someone needs $10,000 to film a documentary, they need to sell x number of DVDs (or free downloads) to cover the costs. Kickstarter is a way to guarantee that there is sufficient demand for the product. There can also be special rewards such as lunch with the creator or signed copies of books.
These are not donations because people get something in return.
I laughed way too hard at this.
Not really. You can’t foretell the appeal of something that’s different from the norm. There was no reason to think the Original Star Wars was going to be popular. Science fiction was never particularly popular, and were at a lull at the time. No one would have had much interest, especially if all they had was a description.
And popular is not necessarily good; they’re independent variables. I’m sure Twlight would have had no problem with kick starter, but do you want all films to be of that nature?
That’s what’s happening despite Kickstarter. If anything, Kickstarter is allowing new and different ideas to develop, moving us away from this endless stream of vampire, toy-based, superhero, and Josh Hutcherson movies.
I think you’re focusing on too small a part of what Crowdfunding does. What’s good about it is encouraging new blood and fresh ideas, even if within familiar and popular genres. How many times have we said “I can do better than that!” but don’t get an opportunity to prove it? Kickstarter gives those of us a fighting chance to see if we’re right.
Gee, it’s so terrible when people get to support what they like, instead of being spoon fed by some government agency or corporation.