ABSTRACT
In August , the New York Times Magazine published Steven Johnson’s article “Th e Creative Apocalypse Th at Wasn’t,” which triggered an extraordinary fl ood of readers’ comments, as well as responses from other journalists and commentators. In the article, Johnson outlines the idea that, contrary to many other observers’ claims, the digital economy did not negatively aff ect the creative class. Tracing the development of digital technology and its impact on creative work from the appearance of the music fi le-sharing service Napster onward, Johnson starts by quoting Lars Ulrich, the drummer of the band Metallica, condemning Napster. In his now notorious testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in , Ulrich explained the negative impact of digital reproduction on works of art-particularly on their commercial exploitation and their creators’ incomes.
Although Napster was shut down soon after, it quickly became clear that it was only the precursor of much bigger changes to come. Th e expansion of
peer-to-peer fi le sharing networks, online piracy, and broadband Internet in general,
signaled a fundamental rearrangement in the way we discover, consume and (most importantly) pay for creative work. In the 15 years since, many artists and commentators have come to believe that Ulrich’s promised apocalypse is now upon us-that the digital economy, in which information not only wants to be free but for all practical purposes is free, ultimately means that “the diverse voices of the artists will disappear,” because musicians and writers and fi lmmakers can no longer make a living. 3
Drawing on statistical data analysis, Johnson tries to show that although revenues from the sales of recorded music have fallen, musicians were able to compensate for this through live performances and other means. While the music industry as a whole has indeed suff ered signifi cant revenue losses, movies, television, and books have actually increased overall earnings, allowing for new opportunities for fi lmmakers, actors, screenwriters, et al. Johnson goes on to dispute journalist Jason Bailey’s assessment of the decline of the “economics of quality”—how low-or mid-budget dramatic fi lms with an “adult-themed sensibility,” such as Blue Velvet (), Do the Right Th ing (), or Pulp Fiction (), would not be able to be made in today’s cultural climate. Johnson refutes Bailey’s claim by stating that box-offi ce numbers and fi lm critics’ responses prove that there is no drop in quality fi lms being made now, compared to pre-. Johnson does note that while Hollywood studios have moved away from artistically challenging fi lms, the increase in quality television production, as well as the arrival of independent fi lm fi nanciers who have put their money behind such movies as Years a Slave (), Dallas Buyers Club (), American Hustle (), and Th e Wolf of Wall Street () have more than compensated for this. Johnson’s article portrays quite an encouraging picture: according to his assessment, the pessimistic predictions that artistic work as a professional activity will decline-and eventually perhaps even become obsoletewithin a digital economy have not materialized. His arguments are based on the facts that consumers still pay for creative work and that there are now actually more ways in which viewers can access and pay for content than ever before: through numerous devices, online, and through mobile platforms, as well as live events and traditional mass-media channels. Th ere are now also more ways for creators to be compensated for making their work, beyond the traditional mass media channels.
