I recently found myself caught in a bit of a hot spot while commenting on the arts administration blog, Adaptistration. One commenter, Lisa Hirsh of Iron Tongue of Midnight commented,
Boy, I hate where the outgoing president uses the phrase “passion for the product.” “Product” – such a commodified and anonymous way to talk about an orchestra.
I countered with,
I cannot see what is inherently negative in reframing artistic output as a product – this does not devalue art.
Just as a musician practicing his scales is not necessarily making creatively-inspired music; he is no less a musician.
Art that is objectively scrutinized for quality and profitability is still art, not less than art.
Admittedly my analogy was poor (that will teach me not to hastily comment on blog posts!), but it was my last comment which seemed to draw criticism that it did not make much sense, in that it did not relate to the definition of “product.” I can see why that was the case, and admittedly, I was adding meaning to Lisa’s comment that was not explicitly there by inferring that she (or others who dislike using the word product) believed calling orchestral output a “product” was tantamount to “devaluing it” or that necessarily following calling it a product is the action of “objectively scrutiniz[ing orchestral output] for quality and profitability” which is loathsome (particularly profitability).
Phew – looks like I have some baggage, eh? But seriously, I have this baggage only because I have encountered so much of it in the arts world. So, if indeed this is what was meant by Lisa’s comment, I stand by mine. Otherwise, for clarity I still think the answer to Drew McManus’ original inquiry in the post of, “whether or not term ‘product’ is appropriate to use in the context of describing live, performing art” is yes.
To state the obvious, there is no logical reason anyone should fear, be irritated by, or have any other negative connection to calling something a product. It is like calling the sky blue or a dog furry. A product is not inherently a negative thing, but a neutral thing, so to have a negative reaction is truly nonsensical.
Having said all that, I think something far more interesting, semantically, within the post is the use of the words commodification (Lisa’s use) versus commoditization (Drew’s use). I did not think they were interchangeable, and was interested to find out, according to one artist, author, teacher and documentarian Douglas Rushkoff, in his post on the topic, why not.
From Commodified vs. Commoditized,
Strangely enough, this little usage dilemma hasn’t been written about in any reference book or website I can find. And my copyeditors at HarperCollins want me to use the word “commodified” exclusively, since it’s the only one in Websters. But I see the words as very different, and have issued a big STET on that one. And so I am hereby declaring the proper way for these two words to be used, based on the way I’ve been hearing them, as well as seeing them used in magazines and books:
“Commodification” is a somewhat Marxist idea, referring to the way that market values can replace other social values, or the way a market can replace a communal system. “Our parties become commodified as Tupperware moves in to turn them into buying opportunities.” or “The techniques for proper breast feeding used to be passed down from mother to daughter, but now there is a market for lactation consultants. As a result, one of the most intimate human functions has become commodified.”
“Commoditization” is a newer and undocumented word (except in WIKI) referring specifically to the way that goods that used to be distinguishable in terms of attributes end up becoming mere commodities in the eyes of the market or consumers. “The collapse of Marlboro’s brand value in the early 1990’s convinced cigarette manufacturers that their products had become commoditized.” or “Unless Intel comes up with a new kind of computer memory chip, Japanese equivalents will commoditize RAM.” The problem with commoditization is that the only thing that left to distinguish one brand from another is price, so margins shrink.
Commodification is more of a crime of the market against humanity, while commoditization is more of a market problem for the manufacturers of branded goods.
So, if we apply Lisa’s defintion of “Product – such a commodified…way to talk about an orchestra.” Can we then infer the negative connotation of “product” stems from the idea that to commodify something is to commit a heinous act (according to Marx, et al) of replacing social values (art, beauty, the ineffable) with market values (money, marketability, the profitable)?
Drew’s usage of the term commoditization and its connection to “product” makes a bit more sense to me, as he is expressing concern over the usage of the word “product” in association with the phenomenon of “commoditization” as it relates to necessarily devaluing the orchestra’s output, such that replacing players would result in zero qualitative difference. As he states, this is clearly not the case.
My conclusion? Go forth and use the word “product” to describe the output of any performing art with the knowledge it means nothing other than output, creation, good for sale, etc. From there, you are free to make any qualitative judgments about said product, but nothing qualitative can be inferred from the usage of the word “product.”
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a542ad0c-e55c-485e-9af8-a8f583156a44)
Tags: Add new tag, Arts, Douglas Rushkoff, Drew McManus, Performing arts
Some people just dislike the idea of attaching monetary value to their art. Until the rent is due, that is.
The one time that I object to the use of the word product is when you are talking to a customer. Customers do not buy nor pay for products, they buy solutions. There’s an ad on TV for a DVD computer learning course. The author begs ‘please buy my product’. No! You SELL a product, but buy a service.
As for art, you do neither. You ‘patronize’ or ‘invest’.
But then I think that anyone who has paid money to sit in front of an orchestra and listen is quite aware of the commoditization occurring.
I think you are missing the point I was trying to make: concerts and recordings are not the outcome of industrial processes in the way that, say, spark plugs are. Using the word “product” to refer to a concert stops the discussion at the point where the “product” is sold, meaning when the ticket is sold. But the person who buys the ticket is looking for and expecting an _experience_, a performance taking place in time, which the listener will hear and respond to in time and very likely for some time after the performance.
You buy a “product,” you expect some kind of uniformity. You buy a ticket to concerts by two different orchestras – say, your regional orchestra and the Berlin Philharmonic – and you can reasonably expect to have somewhat different experiences. For that matter, if you hear the San francisco Symphony playing the same work under two different conductors, you expect differences.
Given the definitions of commodification and commoditization above, you could say I don’t want either process to affect how musical performances are regarded.
Lisa,
I understand that you do not want the arts to be undervalued. I think everyone here agrees and I believe no one has made the argument to the contrary. Your idiosyncratic definition of the word ‘product’ seems to be causing some confusion. It’s unfortunate that you’ve erroneously foisted so many negative, or limiting, connotations on the poor word. Surely you don’t object to Allan Marquand’s calling Antoine Coysevox an ‘original, varied and productive sculptor’ as he does in “A Textbook of the History of Sculpture”. The produce of production is a product, no?