Should I Publish Myself?

mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
luka said:
find me someone better than me.
Click to expand...

I think you're selling yourself short. I mean it's obvious that you are the greatest living poet, but how about placing yourself in a historical context for your PR blurb? I don't know whether you're better than the likes of Swift or Horace, for instance, but then again they were kinda hung up on technical issues - metre, rhyme etc - that might have got in the way of the self-expressive Roget's thesaurus stuff, so who can say, eh?

;)
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
empty mirror said:
i guess i am hung up on that romantic notion of an artist that has a vision and sets it to paper to relieve the pressure that would otherwise cause the head to explode; put differently, my idea of an author (as artist) is one who writes to express a vision, in contrast to a writer that writes to entertain an audience.

i can understand wanting an artifact but that, too, smacks of capitalism

i know i only half-believe what i just wrote but yeah. if you want to do it, just do it. all this talking about it can be paralyzing.
Click to expand...

How else are you going to share what you've done? You can be an artist and need to communicate and still put work out there, still be a businessman in fact, the two aren't mutually exclusive however nice it might seem. You say you would like to leave it to be found under your bed after you've died, but who's going to have to deal with the publishers then? Your bereaved loved ones? Is that fair?

I've got so any friends who've got this idea of the purity of art being separate from its means of communicating to anyone other than oneself. That isn't art, that's masturbation.

Sorry if I sound harsh but all of the more talented people I know never put anything out because they hate that side of things, and it just means there's loads of crap out there.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The wonder of capitalism is that a £50 million film or £10 million album can be enjoyed by the consumer for a mere tenner.

The wonder of having to pay for art, is that if the consumer refuses to pay even this measly amount, then you can be sure that what you've made is gash.
 
M

massrock

Well-known member
mistersloane said:
the two aren't mutually exclusive
Click to expand...
Yeah that's the thing, you might do it because you have to do it or you love doing it but it still feels like it needs to be out there in the world affecting heads or whatever.

One of the current things in music is that since it can all be had for free you should make it freely available from you so you get to keep in contact with your audience and then have nice physical or deluxe versions available for those that really care.

Does that devalue the work? It does sound a bit icky I'll admit. It's maybe a slightly diff situation with the printed word but not that different. To do with the way people see the necessity or otherwise of paying for information these days. Which is why biscuits is wrong.
 
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
massrock said:
Does that devalue the work? It does sound a bit icky I'll admit. It's maybe a slightly diff situation with the printed word but not that different. To do with the way people see the necessity or otherwise of paying for information these days. Which is why biscuits is wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you agree with me: as you've said, people who 'really care' about a work of art are willing to pay money; those who don't, won't.

I wasn't saying that a work distributed freely is worthless, merely that consumer decisions give less of an indication as to its worth, as they don't have to 'invest' as much in it (lol).
 
Last edited:
M

massrock

Well-known member
I know you weren't saying that.

What I mean is you talked about the wonder of 'having to pay for art'. The point being that in the case of music (for one thing) there is now no 'having' to pay. A number of people may value and desire a particular recording but they see no reason to pay for it. I'm not saying that's right but that's how it is. So you need to work with that and give them a reason to want to pay.

I'm not actually decided on the implications of making stuff freely available in all cases though. There's a lot to be said for the chase as any record collector will tell you.
 
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
It was ambiguous, but what I meant by the 'wonder of having to pay for art' was the 'advantages of that situation whereby art must be paid for' - it wasn't meant to be a statement of fact so much as a thumbs up for cash-as-arbiter-of-value and a thumbs down for the internet free-for-all, where consumer decisions may be less carefully considered.

If I were producing artworks, part of me would be quite keen to see how my stuff fares in the money marketplace, whether it appeals to those who aren't friends or family - those whose arms I can't twist, in other words. When money comes into it, serious things are at stake: strangers might forego their baked bean and Belgian bun dinner to get their hands on my 12 inch - the very thought is quite thrilling. Conversely, on the internet, the only thing my freebies have to contend with is the throbbing queue of my target audience's latest porn downloads.
 
Last edited:
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
I dealt with alot of artists and writers at one point, and I just ended up thinking that the reason alot (not all, obviously) of people have agents, or PR people, or dealers, or anything to do with the business side of things is because they think that it's beneath them.

And I just think, well, you're employing these people, but you think that work is beneath you, what does that mean you think of them? Ultimately it means that you, as the artist, think you're better than other people, and that's just such shite. There's no such thing as purity of art.
 
M

massrock

Well-known member
People need to hear about it first either way, that's the key thing.

Still if the situation is that stuff can be had for free but peeps will pay for it anyway that's quite interesting, important to think about I think.

Crosspost.
 
Last edited:
M

massrock

Well-known member
That's right mistersloane. Also why put your work in the hands of others (and pay them a cut) when you don't have to.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
I think you're selling yourself short. I mean it's obvious that you are the greatest living poet, but how about placing yourself in a historical context for your PR blurb?
Click to expand...

yeah i agree with this.
i think the people who are better than me are shakespeare, almost certainly
um
im not sure to be honest. blake had a great imagination but the writing is a bit clunky at times.
i heard dante is supposed to be good. yeah, i'm not sure. but i agree greatest living poet is clearly too modest a boast. who are your favourite writers mixed biscuits? the ones who are making use of metre whatever you think that is? just out of curiousity.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
i do like the idea of buisness and hustling. im not sure i have the energy for it, but i like the idea. and i agree, to a point, with what biscuits is saying about, well if no one pays for what you do its probably not very good, although if you follow that logic all the way robbie williams is a much better artist than (take your pick)
i also dont see why i cant express a vision in a way that people find entertaining. i certainly arent trying to be avant whatever. anyone can read what i do and understand it becasue im not 'intelligent' in the way pound or olson or david jones opr whatever are, im quite thick, and the only reference points you need are walking down the street, engaging with mass media etc etc... things everyone shares.

the physical artifact for me is not to do with capitalism but to do with something people engage with more closely than they would a throbbing eye burning computer monitor. and more importantly, come back too. its a different way of reading.
but again, i would far rather 100,000 people read it for free than 10,000 read it and paid for it. theres no contest.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
My joshing was admittedly a bit OTT as there is a fair amount of blank verse that I enjoy. Favourite poet is probably the Earl of Rochester, for his satirical shock tactics.

A former neighbour of mine went down the self-publishing route, producing lavishly designed volumes of edgy modern poetry. They met with success - well, at least as much success as poetry can meet with these days - but the effort and expense involved in producing and promoting the work were substantial (he had to lay on launch nights, woo the press, hawk it round bookshops, create websites, it was endless). I suppose that, to give the work a fair chance of finding its right readers, considerable promotional effort is a necessity. Then again, there is the danger that people end up buying it only because you turn up in the local papers every week, the magical connection between skilled author and apt reader does not ensue, and you become the next Robbie Williams.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
can anyone reccomend any journals etc to send individual poems to? i send a few off today to addresses i more or less picked at random. i will keep doing this on my days off, just for something to keep me occupied as much as anything. ive never read a poetry journal and dont know much about that world and would appreciate any tips
cheers
L
 
M

msoes

Well-known member
there's good money in poetry competitions in australia
good luck with it, ill buy a copy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top