 |  |  |  |  |
current Monday
Report below!
This week's report by Tom Hendricks, ULA
Reviews
Computer information is written in a language of 2 'letters': '1's and
'0's. But there are 4 options in computer language. What are the other
2? The other two are this: the computer can be either 'on' or 'off'. You
hadn't thought of that had you? But before the computer decides 1 or
0, it must be turned on.
Reviews for art work are the same way. And that is the subject for this
Monday's Report.
Most people think of reviews and immediately think of only one side of
them - is the review good or bad (1 or 0). But just as important for the
artist is the bigger question: does he get a review or not (is that
computer on or off). For me the most important part of a review is
getting it. Whether the reviewer likes it or not is only secondary. The
review allows the reader to know my work. He'll decide if he agrees
with the reviewer. But when there is no review, I as an artist, am
invisible and my career is done before it began.
Right now we are in a period when so much is owned by so few, that
these few (what many call the Big 6 - six major conglomerates that
own the majority of all publishing, tv, film, music, electronic media,
magazines, etc. They are Warners, Disney, GE/NBC, News Corp,
Bertelsmann, Viacom) will only use their review outlets to review each
other's work. And because the daily newspapers or print journalism
depend so much on these behemouths ad dollars, they use almost all
their review space to review these same Big 6 product. Note how little
local music, art, writing, theater, etc. gets reviews in your local
newspaper
This incestuous review policy , no matter how fair it began, has grown
to be grossly unfair for a number of reasons. Here's some of them" 1.
Daily newspapers need the ad money from these conglomerates.
Therefore they review their work at the expense of indy artists . Ask
yourself when was the last ;time you saw a review of any artist who
wasn't in some way, directly or indirectly, advertising with that paper. .
For ex. In the Dallas Morning News, the entire year of local art was
summed up in one annual page while Hollywood gossip and news
gets the 2nd page each and every day! There have also been accounts
of film promoters asking newspaper reviewers to say certain lines in
their review so they may quote them in their ads for that movie!
2. Disney reviews Disney. There is a real conflict of interest when a
Disney (Buena Vista) distributed tv show like 'Ebert and Roper',
reviews Disney films, or the Warners owned People magazine reviews
Warner Recordings, films, tv shows, etc or Letterman (on CBS) has
mostly guests from CBS tv shows, or Fox that used to own TV Guide,
gives Fox tv shows reviews. The right thing to do is stop reviewing
your own company's product. But none will do that . Why would they?
That is the reason they have their own review site - to review their
own. 3. New York Times and other major book reviewing sites are so
rigid that they can't or won't review indy work no matter how high
quality it is. Note the lack of zine coverage in this and other book
review sites. And these people are supposed to love lit in all its forms!
4 Even PBS who so badly needs funds now , seems to be dumping
what miniscule indy artist coverage they used to do, in favor of the
mainstream (though they sneakily only review the more marginal
mainstream - but its still the same Big 6). It's hardly all things
considered! And on and on it goes.
In the end you have reviews that aren't telling you the truth anymore.
For example, when they talk about quality in books being reviewed, at
best they only measure it between elligible candidates from the
conglomerates. Note how many of the old guard in the publishing
industry have spoken out against the new consolidation in their
memoirs. They have elequently spoken about how books and the love
of books has been changed to product and the campaign to sell
product. And if they are right, and none should know more than these
insiders, then how can book reviews praising this corporate junk be
right? They can't.
As a musician, painter, and writer, it finally dawned on me that this
review boycott can destroy any career in art. And without a fair review
site that reviews on quality not promotional $$$ , quality won't count.
A quick look at the product of these conglomerates over the 2
decades of their reign, proves that point loud and clear. The truth is
almost all of these corporate art books SHOULD HAVE gotten bad
reviews. (And a 2nd batch of bad reviews for their outrageous price
tags) So to promote truth in reviews again, to bring some fairness to
reviews, to get the $$$ and influence out of reviews, to give the indy
artist outside of the grip of these six a fair review for the first time in 2
decades (turn THEIR computer on too), I have started a review site
that lets anyone 'Audition for the World' . For a processing fee that
allows me to dump the influence peddlers (no ads, no sponsors, no
gov. grants) I can provide a real alt to the mess, mainstream reviews
have become. I started this fair review site on Jan. 04. Let's hope that
it works. But whether it does or not, it at least addresses the two fold
problem of reviews:
Everyone should be able to get a fair review (they can't now). Reviews
should be based on quality (they aren't now).
Tom Hendricks, http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
GO HERE TO ENTER THE MONDAY REPORT BOX.
