Without a doubt, the internet is the system with the most considerable disruptive effect of the corporate model, and this should be expected since it is also the biggest disruptor of the status quo in every industry and human institution since the industrial revolution.
It is fortuitous that widespread internet use coincided with the quality decline and homogenization that occurred at the end of the corporate system due to the conglomeration of media corporations. The tendency was to make only a few products and force their popularity through control of mass media—in essence, to make pop art by fiat, which is more efficient than making many different products for many different segments, many of which will fail. The dream was to eliminate the dice roll that is making any product for a free market. When the internet arrived, the market was primed and ready for outsiders to provide products to underserved market segments.
Independent artistry exploded in the 2000s, with bands suddenly able to gain a following without a label using social media (MySpace was a music-based social media site, initially) and artists able to monetize things like webcomics with merchandise and advertising. Independent authors broadsided the publishing industry by releasing a glut of new, cheap ebooks on Amazon to readers hungry for things that were new, different, or just met their tastes better than what they saw on the Barnes and Noble bookshelf. The decline of physical book sales beginning in 2008 was entirely made up for by ebook sales, an area where independents dominate.
Technology continued to improve, allowing more and more forms of media to escape from the dominance of the corporate model. Digital audio workstation (DAW) software running on personal computers allowed individual musicians to produce their own high-quality recordings without label support. They no longer needed to budget a hundred thousand dollars to make something that sounded great but could spend a few thousand on an interface and some microphones to use with their existing computers. The same eventually happened with filmmakers using digital cameras and editing software, and the internet delivered ways to distribute new video content, the biggest being YouTube. Artists shifted into the digital space where they could paint with higher fidelity and a faster workflow. Computer-assisted creation pushed past the former limit to the realm of writers with word processors on low-spec monochrome P.C.s. to a true multimedia future. The common man could now create and distribute art all on his own, with no approval and support from the corporate bigwigs.
The biggest punch to the corporations, however, came in the grey market: file-sharing services. If you were to pick a moment in time when all the music industry gains of the 1990s began to tumble away, the moment when the industry as we knew it ended, it was the moment Napster went live. Record sales have never recovered from the introduction of Napster, long after the death of the program itself, and only convenient streaming services have slightly reversed the collapse of the recording industry[1]. At one point, the RIAA sued LimeWire, a successor of Napster, for 75 trillion dollars—more money than exists.[2] The death of the service still didn’t put a dent in piracy. The Net moves quicker than the courts.
The free and open internet allowed consumers to listen to whatever music they wanted, whenever they wanted, for free, and after such a Pandora’s Box was opened, it couldn’t be closed. Paying for music became optional from the year 2000 forward, and most consumers chose not to pay in increasing numbers every year after that. Why would they? The 90s were a wasteland of albums stuffed with sub-par material at a premium price; by making pop art by fiat, the recording industry had made their product literally worthless. That same attitude, as the internet got faster and computers gained power, would become applied to movies, T.V. shows, and games, and no amount of DRM (digital rights management) or legislation from Congress was able to step on the brakes.
The only thing that slowed piracy was making content so cheap and easily accessible by regular consumers that most people stopped bothering with the effort of file sharing. But by then, the damage was done. Habits had changed. Consumers were no longer turning on the radio to listen to whatever new five songs Clear Channel thought they ought to like. They were no longer flipping on the T.V. to see what was on. And they weren’t willing to pay for cable packages full of unwanted channels stuffed with cheap fluff when they could watch exactly what they wanted to for free on YouTube or get premium shows on streaming services for a much lower monthly price. Music artists got the shortest end of the stick with the change, earning next to nothing on streaming royalties while tech company profits soared. Of course, music artists by the 90s were the worst off of all anyway, with many owning their record companies’ money even after going gold due to the way contracts were constructed. I personally documented that in the late 2010s, many otherwise popular acts were quitting the industry because there was simply no reasonable way to earn a living in the husk of the corporate model.[3]
With the rise of YouTube, people had access to better news, better comedy, and better music than ever before, and all on demand, while the platform allowed new, independent creators the chance to make money without having to get on the good side of a large company (besides Google). Popularity was a more direct and random path than the feedback loops of payola and taste-making that typified the end of the Corporate Period.
The internet offered too much variety, too much quality, too much value, and too much competition for the corporate model to remain dominant across most forms of media. But was the corporate system dead? Obviously not, but today we are in new waters when the corporate model is no longer the only path to prosperity, where some artists can earn a living without needing the financial and cultural power of a large company.
The limitations of this independence are relative to the physical and human resources necessary to deliver a product. All the necessary parts of book production can potentially be done by a single person if he has the right skills, and if not, things like cover design, editing, and advertising can be hired out to third parties as needed. Music and comics require similarly few people within the computer age—again, potentially one person if he has the right skills. Otherwise, he can hire out what is needed just for the project, whether that is technical staff (like recording technicians), colorists, or pencilers.
Production by a small team or single individual does not diminish quality in these areas, either. I’ve covered metal records by bands like Dimhav, made by two brothers and a vocalist, whose composition and production quality exceeds that of the highest-quality records of the 1990s—they even did the cover art themselves! There are independent games made by very small teams, like Super Meat Boy, Braid, Dust: An Elusian Tail, and even Sonic Mania that have become best-sellers and part of the canon of video games, such as it is. The most popular game ever made, Minecraft, was made by just a single individual.
However, there are residual areas where the corporate system still makes much more sense: blockbuster movies and AAA video games. In these areas, budgets are extreme; the products require a large number of people with diverse talents working toward a common goal, and the structure of a large company is usually required to manage all the many variables and resources required to get the product out on time. CG, special effects, programming, and the large amounts of art required to bring a product of that magnitude to life are beyond the current abilities of individuals or small teams, though the progress of technology may change that in the near future. CG assets could be delivered using video game production techniques, reducing their technical overhead and the personnel necessary to execute them. AI techniques already in use in major productions like Across the Spiderverse have the capacity to bring animation within reach of small, independent teams.
The growth of technology alongside the internet is also very important for considering the shifting dynamics of mass media and corporate art. The internet has provided the means by which independent artists may reach an audience, but it is all the other software and hardware advances that enable the small team or independent artist to actively compete with the corporate system. The power of the word processor is profound when you consider a writer once upon a time had to write a story (usually in long hand), type it, submit it (or find an agent to submit it, as time went on), then wait for it to be edited, re-typed, copy edited or proofread, then type set before finally being printed. Now a writer can type directly into software, edit and proofread it in the same program, then print it in his own home—no internet required.
A modern visual artist no longer needs even to get out paper to sketch; he can work completely within the digital environment on pen displays and using specialized drawing software. All iterations of the work can be done smoothly and instantly; variations take minutes since the art no longer needs to be totally redrawn. The artist, too, can print his own work in his home and sell it how he wishes.
Musicians likewise no longer need to leave the digital environment to compose, record, and publish music. Even performances can be done digitally, as the pandemic of 2020 shows. Score writing programs can be used to compose music directly and hear it played back instantly, and then parts for a band can be printed locally. Recording programs allow for much finer control over sound and editing than in the analog era, with vast quantities of effects able to be simulated on a PC rather than on expensive outboard equipment. Even amplifiers are no longer necessary; a guitarist can plug right into a recording interface and simulate any amp he wants. He can even take those settings on the road using all-in-one processors like the AX-FX or Amplitube Tone-X. This not only enhances an artist’s ability to record music but also massively reduces the cost of entry into the industry.
The explosion of content on YouTube wouldn’t have been possible without a corresponding leap in video technology. The majority of first-world people carry an HD camera in their pockets, effectively reducing the cost of entry for visual media to zero. Editing software has also grown greatly in power; comparing modern tools like Adobe Premiere to Avid Video Shop in the 1990s is like comparing a spaceship to a locomotive; comparing it to the old style of editing requiring the cutting of physical film is more like comparing the Starship Enterprise to a boat made of reeds. And all of it is cheap!
Besides allowing for increased competition, the technological changes of the 20th century have affected the corporate model as well; the tools used to enhance art for the small player also enhance the work of the big player. Next, we’ll take a look at how the intersection of technology and economic factors is creating new modes of creation, funding, and distribution of art in the 21st century and whatever we will end up calling the next period in art. It’s not all upside; the great advances of technology have brought many downsides along with its benefits—ease of creation does not always produce the best possible product.
Before you go, be sure to check out my book on creativity!
[1] https://musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/3340/
[2] https://www.pcworld.com/article/496050/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html