When ‘free’ becomes really expensive

In the age of digital culture, it is not just access to art that has been democratized, but its production as well.


My iPod is packed with thousands of songs I’ve never listened to, by bands whose names I don’t recognize. The hard drive of my laptop contains dozens of movies I’ve downloaded and never watched, and if all goes according to the pattern, I will soon have a Kindle full of books I’ll never read by authors I don’t appreciate. I’m far from alone in this: in the age of digital reproduction, we treat art as a commodity—cheap, ubiquitous, and disrespected.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about economics in the digital age, thanks to a new book by Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson called Free: The Future of a Radical Price. As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in his challenging review in The New Yorker, Anderson’s book is little more than an extended riff on the old cyberlibertarian slogan, “information wants to be free.” Gladwell’s review sparked a bit of a free-for-all amongst bloggers, with everyone from branding guru Seth Godin to Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban chiming in with their own opinions on the matter.  

Of course, information doesn’t want to be anything. It is just a good like any other, subject to the usual laws of supply and demand. For centuries information was scarce, and the heavy demand for news, culture, and other idea-laden goods made them expensive. We now live in a topsy-turvy world of information abundance, with a glut of ideas chasing an increasingly limited supply of demand, in the form of time or attention.

The focus of Anderson’s book, along with most of the commentary, is the effect of the “freeconomy” on the business models of newspapers, magazines and other enterprises that make a living by selling stuff made of ideas, when those ideas can be copied at a marginal cost only a shade above zero. But one issue that has been neglected in the discussion is the effect of “free” on art itself, on the nature of aesthetic experience when the only expense is the time it takes to consume it.

Decades ago, the cultural theorist Walter Benjamin wrote a famous (well, famous among cultural studies majors) essay called “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Benjamin explored what he called the “aura”—the sense of awe and veneration we have in the presence of an original, authentic work of art that has been created at a certain time for a specific ritual, exhibition, or performance.

The age of mechanical reproduction shattered art’s aura. With the rise of art forms like film and photography, the question of which is the “original” ceases to make any sense, and artistic experience was cut loose from the requirement to be in a specific place and time. When a movie opens “in cinemas everywhere,” everyone who sees it has the identical experience.

Benjamin saw this as a mixed blessing. He was wary of how the mechanical reproduction of art pushed it into the service of mass—and frequently totalitarian—politics. But at the same time, he conceded that widespread access to art had a democratizing influence, taking its consumption and appreciation out of the hands of the power-brokers and the elites.

In the age of digital culture, it is not just access to art that has been democratized, but its production as well. What we are seeing now is the fulfillment of the old Romantic ideal of every individual as a creative spirit, as millions of amateurs flood the Internet with their own songs, videos, photographs and stories. As a result, real artists have to go to increasingly strenuous lengths to capture a share of the public’s attention—a couple of months ago, for example, the musician Moby booked an entire spa so that journalists could listen to his new album while getting a massage.

A more delightful example of the attention economy at work comes courtesy of a fan of indie folk hero Sufjan Stevens. In 2007, Stevens held a contest, in which he awarded the rights to a new song, The Lonely Man of Winter, to a New York theatre director named Alec Duffy. While Stevens gave him the unconditional right to do whatever he wanted with the song (destroy it, use it to sell snowmobiles, etc.), most fans expected that Duffy would just put it online for all to hear. Instead, he decided that the only place to hear the song would be in his living room. Sufjan Stevens fans now make pilgrimages to Duffy’s Brooklyn apartment, where he serves tea, plays the song a few times, and then sends them on their way with a bag of cookies, a tune they’ll never hear again already fading in their minds.

So we are starting to see a turn toward forms of artistic experiences that by their nature can’t be digitized. In many ways, it marks a deliberate return to folk art traditions, based around works that are transient, ephemeral, and site specific. What this involves is the rehabilitation of the old idea of the unique, authentic work having an aura that makes it worthy of our profound respect. But in a reversal of Walter Benjamin’s analysis, the gain in deep artistic appreciation is balanced by a loss in egalitarian principle.

It also involves the return of power-brokers and elites who ration access to art and parcel it out at whim. After all, not every Sufjan Stevens fan can afford to fly to New York City just to hear a song, and not every musician can afford to rent out a massage parlour to curry favour with reviewers. It turns out that in the attention economy, a profound aesthetic experience becomes something that is free to those who can afford it, and very expensive to those who cannot.


When ‘free’ becomes really expensive

  1. Interesting column.

    Ironically, I'm sitting here in a perfectly comfortable stuffy chair at Starbucks, consuming my free refill of coffee, and using my free two hour a day wifi connection (before you used to need a $5 activated card – but now just a username and password is required.)

  2. Andrew,
    It is becoming very evident that the only way for an artist to make money now is through performance. That artists could get rich very quickly and easily on reselling recordings and reproductions for a period in the 20th Century turns out to be exceptional. It only worked because the means of reproduction and distribution were so clunky and expensive; now that they are easy and virtually free, the only defenders are the companies that previously relied on the old technology.

    As for the democratization of production, well, there was never a time when a individual could not "create", if only by singing or playing a simple instrument or declaiming a story or whatever.

    I would maintain that the explosion of content is because people now have the leisure to devote to artistic pursuit. How many people over the ages have harbored some special ability and never had the chance to show it, simply because the basic problems of survival took precedence?

  3. Bill,

    I disagree completely. A recorded album is a totally unique entity from a live performance. If well done, both can be extremely rewarding, but they are potentially quite different. The Beatles best stuff, for example, came when they quit touring and focused on studio technique. A modern example is Sufjan Stevens (mentioned in the article). His Illinois album is fantastic, but it is impossible to reproduce live.

    There are costs associated with the recording process, and it would be a terrible loss if that disappeared because the artists only make money through performance. Thankfully (to me and many other music fans) I don't believe that is the case.

    As far as democratization of production, you're right about individuals always being able to create, but only in certain media, like the ones you mention. Multi-track audio was cost prohibitive, as was shooting and editing video. Now, those things are easily affordable. My Mac came with music mixing and video editing applications for free. Leisure time is just part of the reason.

  4. I wonder if academia actually provides a freeconomy model for knowledge. What is rather amazing about academics is that they generally work very hard to produce articles for which they are not paid (except indirectly, and with diminishing returns particularly after they become full professors). The work they produce is freely available or close to it (the cost of jstor access divided by the number of articles in existence boils down to very little money).

    Of course part of how this happens is through public subsidization of post-secondary education and university research (another part is through tuition). The general public accepts this (sometimes grudgingly) because academic knowledge is a public good. My reading of Einstein's theory of relativity does not impact your ability to read it (non-rivalrous consumption). It is also difficult to prevent others from spreading the idea, once you tell somebody about it (it is not excludable).

    What about say, music? Or the news? Once upon a time it was at least easier to tie information (which is a public good) to some medium which was not a public good. Yes, books can be shared with a friend, and cassette tapes could be copied, but the costs in time, money and knowledge are much lower nowadays for spreading such things. The obvious solution to me is the academic model. Subsidization of a public good to prevent under-provision.

    In other words, I foresee a third period where art is driven not by elites, not by corporations, but by the state. Musicians would make ends meet by getting government grants. They would get grants by building up their prestige through producing good music (at least as far as granting councils were concerned). Eventually artists might be prestigious enough to do well through performance, but only after period of government cheese.

  5. the July 27 Macleans mentions that Chris Anderson's book is available online for free. However, free online access is restricted to the U.S. !!!

    **everything** is more expensive in Canada (smile)

  6. I found lots of interesting information here. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject.

  7. This is a very good informative post, you've got the point across really well. Thanks.

    SEO Consultant – UK.

  8. dont know who you think you are, but youre just blowing smoke out your ears. Nothing youre saying makes sense and its all a bunch of immature ranting.

  9. Giving away free stuff has made the world a better place. Businesses that embrace this will benefit in the long run – if their overall strategy is correct.

  10. good debate…like..some times i feel that how can it be possible? but yes you are right many factors always beyond the human control and one needs to obey the rules…I have gone through this and really enjoyed the content. would like to create and follow the same..

  11. It's true that many writeup have an outstanding explaination about the subject and this one is among them. i really appreciate the efforts made by the author

  12. Very nice article. Its amazing to see different point of view of different people.

  13. Yeah companies know that when they put “free” or “more free” on something its just to sucker ppl in to buy their product. I totally agree with you. 

Sign in to comment.