Culture and Corporations.

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't remember if I've asked this before, and if I have I apologize, but does it bother anyone else that most of our culture (stories, fables etc.) are controlled by soulless corporations? Personally it bugs the hell out of me. It bugs the hell out of me that culture is being created, not out of desire to create or inspire, but instead just to make money.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

On a certain level, yes it does.

But it's like... fuck are we gonna do about it? Thems the breaks.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well, to be fair, the market consumption of culture also increases total production of new stories and new tales. After all, in many regards the original Star Wars trilogy trumps maany of the great epics of antiquity. I say that with total sincerity. Yes, plenty of IP based on other media sucks in comparison ... but totally original(ish) IP is in many ways far more epic than what we had in the past. I'm willing to bet not just now, but in a hundred years, more people will still have seen the original Star Wars trilogy (hopefully pre-Lucas tamperings) than read the Iliad.

I'm also willing to bet that Tolkien may be seen as the great 20th century Homer of the age. When people 500 years from now study the 'Early-Modern Information Age' era of humanity's progress, and his effect on the literary traditions and mythology-making of his time...

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

You seem upset. Maybe you're working too hard. I recommend you report to your local Company approved psychiatrist. A healthy mind is a healthy life, and a healthy life is a healthy worker.
We must always strive to build a better world.
We're making them all, better worlds.

~SilentPony
CPA, Weyland-Yutani
"Building Better Worlds"

 

[Saelune]

In what way? If you mean say, Disney, its because Disney capitalized on public domain. They don't own Snow White or Aladdin. They just own Disney's Snow White, and Disney's Aladdin.

If you wanted to make a movie where Snow White and Aladdin threw a birthday party for Hercules and they all sing "Happy Birthday" you have all the legal freedom to, long as you don't draw them exactly like in the Disney films.

If you mean original stuff, I personally have more faith in creative people I suppose. Did you know you can watch people on youtube play a free game made for the fun of it that is based on a free community writing site that is also for the fun of it, and not directly pay any of them? (SCP for those who wonder)

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, yes, but that's nothing new. All the cathedrals were investments, Michelangelo was commissioned to carve David, Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to write if people didn't pay to watch plays.

 

[Musou Sadie]

Not really, that would be kinda racist and sexist towards Corporationiers.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Well, yes, but that's nothing new. All the cathedrals were investments, Michelangelo was commissioned to carve David, Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to write if people didn't pay to watch plays.

This. Art and creativity has always lived and died based on those who back it with cash.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well, yes, but that's nothing new. All the cathedrals were investments, Michelangelo was commissioned to carve David, Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to write if people didn't pay to watch plays.

Yes, but it those days there weren't huge multinational corporations that controlled those things.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, yes, but that's nothing new. All the cathedrals were investments, Michelangelo was commissioned to carve David, Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to write if people didn't pay to watch plays.

Yes, but it those days there weren't huge multinational corporations that controlled those things.

Well, no, but it was often heads of state and the church, not seeing much difference. The Catholic Church sorta was a huge multinational corporation anyway.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well, no, but it was often heads of state and the church, not seeing much difference. The Catholic Church sorta was a huge multinational corporation anyway.

Given that it has controlling interests in numerous firms, yeah. It's still the biggest financial power on Earth. But then again, so does the Church of England, and the Anglican Church has been flexing its muscles over the last 4 years. Buying up numerous bank holdings. They were planning on launching a newly revamped W&G banking group through their Corsair Consortium ... aptly named, might I add.

Religion is big business. Kind of scary big. The kind of big where there's no place to hide if you piss them off.

 

[sageoftruth]

If it's any comfort, it can be both, but I agree that it's frustrating when you know that some artistic ideas will never be attempted, simply because it never had a chance of being profitable.
On the other hand, there's always the internet, where there are always people churning out ideas or works of art for free. Sure, they still need to rely on some company-controlled software to do it, but those companies can be pretty hands-off if you know where to look.

 

[stroopwafel]

Money makes the world go round. Not just with entertainment(or any other consumer product) but with basically everything else in life that is either in demand or requires skill. Take for example a heart surgeon. Would they be willing to put in all the effort when not for a fat paycheck in return? But does this somehow invalidate their effort when they save someone's life? I don't think so. Even hedge fund managers with a billion dollars on their bank account would not have this kind of wealth if their clientele prefered cheaper index funds. Ehmmm...maybe that's a bad example.

Point is that I think one thing doesn't exclude another. Yeah the primary motivation for any company is to make a profit but that doesn't mean the people working for said company have no desire to ''create or inspire''. Often it is all about the money ofcourse but I think you can find a fair amount of exceptions espescially in the creative industry.

 

[FalloutJack]

Canada Man, there are religious nutjobs who think disney characters are the work of the devil, yet the only thing disney is really guilty of is wanting to make money. I don't think they're all bad. Don't you kinda' have to be a large company to produce these things?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Point is that I think one thing doesn't exclude another. Yeah the primary motivation for any company is to make a profit but that doesn't mean the people working for said company have no desire to ''create or inspire''. Often it is all about the money ofcourse but I think you can find a fair amount of exceptions espescially in the creative industry.

No, but those creative people are mandated and heavily restricted by executives who only care about the profit and thus we get crap like EA's Sim City, Sims 4, Dragon Age 2, among other things.
Then again, I'm of the belief that all corporations are the bane of society and should be purged from the Earth with fire and salt. Them and Lawyers.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Not all culture is created through corporate entities.

The independent movie/game lives a tumultuous, fragile existence. It can still survive. And sometimes (Undertale/Minecraft/Terminator[footnote]Surprisingly small budget and risky for its time considering Cameron [http://whatculture.com/film/20-influential-independent-films-time?page=3] wasn't what he is now. It was distributed by Orion, not produced.[/footnote]) they worm themselves into popular culture in a big way!

You can see how the entertainment power-brokers gobble up the new, successful material as soon as they spot it. Minecraft, Microsoft. Terminator? We remember the terrible sequels after Cameron left when he secured his money.

So I would say that corporations in the entertainment industry absolutely endeavor to control the product of pop culture but I wouldn't say they're the sole originators of it. They push derivatives as much as they can while it still sells. When the next Blair Witch Project shows up, making heaps of money at a low price point; expect to see a lot of similar things following it for the quick buck. It shouldn't discredit the value of the original spark of the culture but we go from trend to trend so fast now that only those who look for it will appreciate the source.

 

[Trunkage]

The other thing to consider is that corporations don't make or design products, individuals do. As stated in other posts, the corporations pay for and influence them. Take big pharmaceutical for example. A lot of research gets done by 'the little guys' like Uni research labs. The big companies purchase the patent, test its viability and bring it to market. The idea doesn't usually come from a big company but they do make it fashionable/ ubiquitous.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I don't remember if I've asked this before, and if I have I apologize, but does it bother anyone else that most of our culture (stories, fables etc.) are controlled by soulless corporations? Personally it bugs the hell out of me. It bugs the hell out of me that culture is being created, not out of desire to create or inspire, but instead just to make money.

Not really.
Do you think about your own death? I mean, you know it will happen. The pain, loss, those who that will be left behind - yet there is nothing you can do about it. If it is something you can't do anything about, it is useless to think too deeply about it. Because even if you do, nothing will change and you will only waste your time.

Knowing it, however is a value. Living while knowing that your life is controlled by corporations, knowing that your life will end. Understanding life gives you... perspective.

On the other hand, there's always the internet, where there are always people churning out ideas or works of art for free. Sure, they still need to rely on some company-controlled software to do it, but those companies can be pretty hands-off if you know where to look.

I disagree. Mass media is good example of this - currently favored tool to control the minds of people. This method that is currently used within traditional media could also be used with internet as well.

People have prices - and especially if they are working on their own. "Headhunting" is word used in the real world... and I expect that it will become more popular across internet in the future. One good example - crude as it may be - is Youtube advertising campaign for the Shadow of Mordor. Of course, there are more dubious methods of manipulating internet, but I don't want people to get ideas.

Internet has yet to be thoroughly exploited by corporations yet, and it just means this may just be "good old days of internet before corporations ruined it".

 

[stroopwafel]

No, but those creative people are mandated and heavily restricted by executives who only care about the profit and thus we get crap like EA's Sim City, Sims 4, Dragon Age 2, among other things.
Then again, I'm of the belief that all corporations are the bane of society and should be purged from the Earth with fire and salt. Them and Lawyers.

Yeah, but EA is probably a bad example as this company is know to put profit above all else. However there are many other publishers who do allow their developers either a lot or full creative control. Fact is that corporations are pretty much required to produce, finance and distribute games. Without corporations(and profit incentive) there is no money for R&D and mass distribution so say goodbye to your PC and Playstation as well.

I don't think corporations are necessarily 'evil' but shareholder culture and corporate excess definitely gives them a bad rep(and rightfully so). Likewise I don't think lawyers are bad but litigation culture definitely is. You have this situation now where corporate managers take position for a few years with no other intent than to bump short-term stock price at the expense of the company itself and lawyers exploiting legal systems for their benefactors to avoid fiscal responsibilities. Nobody cares anymore beyond immediate return on investment but often I think that's not so much the corporation's fault but rather the shareholder culture it must survive in.

The other thing to consider is that corporations don't make or design products, individuals do. As stated in other posts, the corporations pay for and influence them. Take big pharmaceutical for example. A lot of research gets done by 'the little guys' like Uni research labs. The big companies purchase the patent, test its viability and bring it to market. The idea doesn't usually come from a big company but they do make it fashionable/ ubiquitous.

Yeah, R&D is often outsourced to small labs or life science companies but the pharmaceutical corporations have the money, distribution channels, legal teams and PR machine to put them on the market. It's a position they often majorly abuse by charging ridiculous prices for medications(espescially new medications). Not to mention pushing medication onto medical practitioners(GPs and hospitals) often at the detriment of the patient. Again it's the precedence of shareholder value over pretty much everything else.

 

[Trunkage]

No, but those creative people are mandated and heavily restricted by executives who only care about the profit and thus we get crap like EA's Sim City, Sims 4, Dragon Age 2, among other things.
Then again, I'm of the belief that all corporations are the bane of society and should be purged from the Earth with fire and salt. Them and Lawyers.

Yeah, but EA is probably a bad example as this company is know to put profit above all else. However there are many other publishers who do allow their developers either a lot or full creative control. Fact is that corporations are pretty much required to produce, finance and distribute games. Without corporations(and profit incentive) there is no money for R&D and mass distribution so say goodbye to your PC and Playstation as well.

I don't think corporations are necessarily 'evil' but shareholder culture and corporate excess definitely gives them a bad rep(and rightfully so). Likewise I don't think lawyers are bad but litigation culture definitely is. You have this situation now where corporate managers take position for a few years with no other intent than to bump short-term stock price at the expense of the company itself and lawyers exploiting legal systems for their benefactors to avoid fiscal responsibilities. Nobody cares anymore beyond immediate return on investment but often I think that's not so much the corporation's fault but rather the shareholder culture it must survive in.

The other thing to consider is that corporations don't make or design products, individuals do. As stated in other posts, the corporations pay for and influence them. Take big pharmaceutical for example. A lot of research gets done by 'the little guys' like Uni research labs. The big companies purchase the patent, test its viability and bring it to market. The idea doesn't usually come from a big company but they do make it fashionable/ ubiquitous.

Yeah, R&D is often outsourced to small labs or life science companies but the pharmaceutical corporations have the money, distribution channels, legal teams and PR machine to put them on the market. It's a position they often majorly abuse by charging ridiculous prices for medications(espescially new medications). Not to mention pushing medication onto medical practitioners(GPs and hospitals) often at the detriment of the patient. Again it's the precedence of shareholder value over pretty much everything else.

I've looked things like the theory of price signal and I find the situation strange. The concept is sound as it shows up IRL but there are big discrepancies like your exampl or something like houses or an IPhone, where the price is clearly inflated over its value. During the central planning vs emergent economy that people like Hayek participated in, the main reason why central planning was bad was that it affected prices and thier signal. This will impair the allocation of resources to its best use. But the debators don't acknowledge that price are serverely affect by corporate entities, as they want as much allocation to go to them. Prices are far more made up then they are willing to admit. Advertising in the 50s was more about faking the products value. The GFC was the same but with risk, banks paid ratings agencies to fake risk assessment results.

Now, I'm all for getting rid of government restriction if they impede progress (eg. Fannie mae and Freddie Mac.) What I get tired of quickly is people, like libertarians or Austraian school economists, who say that you should just believe in the market. You are the best people to help Capitalism work and you decision to let it slide just destroys the foundation of Caputalism. The market doesn't allocate resources well, it's just better than everything else (fascism, mercantilism or communism)