Art or commerce? Bob Dylan, PBS and ‘Mank’
Prior to sitting down to write this morning, the New York Times reported Bob
Dylan was receiving an estimated $300 million bump in exchange for his music catalog. The purchaser, Universal Music Publishing Group, must’ve thought it a grand idea … otherwise there would’ve been no deal.
It’s not whether Dylan needs the moolah in the first place as he was already estimated to be worth $200 million. But those songs are his creation and he’s free to do with them as he pleases.
Cue the outraged masses who bought into the whole Woody Guthrie hobo mythology of a scrawny, penurious lad in dungarees and a cloth newsboy cap barely scraping by in Greenwich Village in the early 1960s. Somehow that lad made good by dint of talent, hard work and more than a few collaborators both inside and outside the recording studio. Lightning struck, got trapped in a bottle, and wound up sold as commercial art.
It’s terribly funny how some people perceive the intersection of commerce and art.
On one hand, there’s the group that thinks the only good money spent on art stems from one government entity or another in some type of “No Artist Left Behind” boondoggle or another; on which, more below.
On the other hand, there’s a group that distinguishes between high, middle and low art — each priced accordingly and sold in the appropriate marketplace. Some folks wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for a Van Gogh, for example, but others will spend hundreds of millions. It’s all in the eyes and wallets of the beholder, supply and demand, and whatnot.
Is there a disconnect between the bitter narrator of “Positively 4th Street” and the guy suddenly catapulted into the world’s top 0.01%? Keep in mind Van Gogh’s “Bedroom in Arles” is valued around $81 million. For the unaware, it’s a painting of a sparsely appointed room. True, Van Gogh didn’t live long enough to recognize such profits, but should Dylan be made to suffer because he did?
Perhaps “suffer” is a bit exaggerated, but why deny someone the full fruits of their labors over the course of the past 60 years, or some corporate entity’s right to purchase it on the speculation it will continue to generate revenue into perpetuity?
Coincidentally, our country’s public broadcasting system is celebrating 50 years of taxpayer flamboozlery this month. For roughly the same amount Bob Dylan was paid for a lifetime of music publishing, U.S. taxpayers annually subsidize any number of programs of varying quality.
There exist plenty of other platforms for the American public to find culture, news and entertainment. Last time I checked, none of those aforementioned appear in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Through government subsidies, public broadcasting directly and unfairly competes with programming on commercial stations. Furthermore, any attempt to mount an argument public broadcasting is devoid of advertising is sheer bunk.
One wonders if PBS could compete without taxpayer dollars. In the meantime, streaming services offer plenty of quality recommendations for high-minded viewing.
For those who haven’t canceled their Netflix subscriptions over recent objectionable programming, I would recommend “Mank.” The David Fincher film gloriously captures the heyday of the Hollywood studios, warts and all.
Herman Mankiewicz, is a self-loathing, alcoholic, gambling-addicted, genius who feels he “sold out” by punching up some of the best Tinsel Town dialogue ever — and was deservedly well paid for his efforts.
The real-life Mankiewicz cowrote “Citizen Kane,” the 1941 film released the same year as Preston Sturges’ screwball parody of high-faluting, artistic self-importance, “Sullivan’s Travels.”
Coincidentally, Sturges was paid a groundbreaking king’s ransom for writing 1933’s “The Power and the Glory” screenplay, a thematic and structural inspiration for “Citizen Kane.”
My point is artists shouldn’t guilt-trip over non-coerced earnings from the public and speculators.
Through government subsidies, public broadcasting directly and unfairly competes with programming on commercial stations. Furthermore, any attempt to mount an argument public broadcasting is devoid of advertising is sheer bunk.