Interesting example. When Louis CK decided to go direct rather than through publishers, he did several comedy specials - professionally produced on his own dime - and released them for $5 a piece on his web site. You could download the entire thing. He asked you not to share it with anyone else, and help him make this thing a reality. It worked, and he made multiple times more money than he ever did on a Netflix/whatever special. Of course, when it came out he was a shit to women, I unsubscribed from his site and lists. But your separation of the artist from the platform is an interesting wrinkle to consider, for the Dave Chapelle thing. If Dave had released this for $5 on his own web site, I suspect there'd be some grumpy tweets and scathing commentary in some issue-specific chat rooms. But little public backlash, and it would have been forgotten by the weekend. But because there is a big-name platform involved that - like you said - feeds it to you when you log in to your device to watch other content... that DOES change things, doesn't it? That's a curious thing to consider, and Marshall McLuhan may have had a point after all that the medium is the message. Or, at least changes the message... The beef is against Netflix. Dave Chapelle streaming from his own website is a lot less culturally relevant than Dave Chapelle popping up every time I turn on my Kindle Firestick.
Dude it's the only thing to consider. It's the difference between "what he says" and "what we all say." Art has always been about access - nobody remembers what some random Assyrian said, they remember what Cyrus the Great had carved on the cliff at Behistun. Art and culture are inextricably about access and patronage. Louis CK was able to go private once he was Louis CK. Prior to becoming Louis CK he was just another poorly-paid comedy writer for fifteen years. Louis CK a year after Caroline in the City gets cancelled? Gets 20 downloads a month. Louis CK after he decides Netflix doesn't pay him enough because he's Louis CK? That's always the flip in entertainment - are you taken advantage of or do you take advantage? We know about the Medicis because they controlled public art, not because they were rich. There were other rich families in Florence but it was the Medicis that sprayed their faces on every third wall. Likewise, Kardashians have far more cultural influence than Dursts, despite the Dursts being richer. If the Rothschilds had bought theaters instead of vineyards they probably wouldn't be accused of owning space lasers today.But your separation of the artist from the platform is an interesting wrinkle to consider, for the Dave Chapelle thing.
