« A waste of money | Main | Who needs chief executives? »

October 09, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

tom s.

how do you find these things?

james higham

I was going to make Tom's comment above. ...It is simply by pure chance that one of these artists ends up with more patrons than the rest.This initial advantage makes the lucky artist the most popular, and since consumers prefer popular artists, other consumers will switch to her as well...
Very good point and it's like blogging as well - Michelle Malkin is a case in point who is popular because she's popular [the Liz Hurley syndrome].

dearieme

I see how this works for pop singers and such, but how does it work for talentless bastards like politicians - or am I confusing "talentless" with "having talents I despise"? Hang on, that applies to pop singers too. Ah, I may despise the talents of pop singers, but I can discern them. Is that the difference?

chris

Tom - I find em by subscribing to this:
http://nep.repec.org/

nz conservative

Being successful in areas like pop music is increasingly about the relationship between the star and the people backing them.

There are some very talented people that don't get on because they they can't form good relationships with their promoters.

This is certainly a lot of luck in whether a potential star can find a good promoter. Since artists are often very thin skinned, bad early experiences will often break their careers. They aren't like entrepreners who can keep bouncing back from failure.


Chris Williams

This is news? Chris D, you need to have a look at the history of art - and also at the academic practice of Art History (AKA outdoor relief for the upper classes).

tom s.

Chris - Thanks for the pointer.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad