The Creative Drought

Cultural recycling is all the rage, with sequels, prequels and franchises dominating movie theaters, jukebox musicals built around golden oldies in command on Broadway, and television series reboots galore. Much as superheroes and comic books have taken over the box office, celebrity artists and authors tower over the art world and book publishing.

The 1970s witnessed an explosion of new popular musical genres: punk rock, disco, hip-hop, heavy metal and New Wave. But nothing like that burst of creativity has occurred since.

We are in the midst of a crisis of cultural innovation. Popular culture has lost its edge. The movies are stuck in a loop. Modern art has become an echo chamber. Creativity is on pause. That’s what the music historian and cultural essayist Ted Gioia thinks. I agree.

Art, film and music are all struggling to evolve.

Despite the rapid technological advances of the 21st century, the arts and culture industries have entered a period of stagnation, where innovation is stifled by commercial pressures and a reliance on nostalgia, leading to a recycling of ideas rather than the creation of new cultural paradigms.

Economic incentives and algorithm-driven content creation have replaced the bold experimentation and originality that once defined the arts. The drive for profit and safety has overshadowed the risk-taking and boundary-pushing that are essential to cultural evolution.

The stagnation of modern art forms, from music to cinema, can be traced to a cultural landscape dominated by corporate interests and a public increasingly conditioned to consume formulaic, familiar content, leading to a decline in artistic innovation and diversity.

In an era when cultural production is increasingly governed by commercial imperatives, the arts have become trapped in a cycle of repetition, failing to challenge audiences or push boundaries and resulting in a widespread stagnation that threatens the vitality of contemporary culture.

---

To support his claims about cultural stagnation, Gioia cites the following pieces of evidence:

• U.S. film and TV production is down 40 percent from its peak.
• Old music is killing new music, with older songs making up 72.8 percent of all songs that are streamed.
• The New York Times list of the 100 best books of the 21st century consists significantly of writers who are over 65 and who are best known for their 20th-century books.
• Among the most popular video games today are Minecraft (launched in 2011), Call of Duty (2003), Grand Theft Auto (1997), Madden NFL (1988) and Super Mario Bros. (1985).
• Every one of the top 20 best-selling comic books comes from Marvel (founded in 1939) or DC Comics (founded in 1934).
• Eighty-three percent of Hollywood revenues now come from franchise films.
• The top-grossing Broadway hits are mainly retreads from the 20th century, like The Lion King.

Gioia maintains that the circumstances that spark innovation have faded. The entertainment sector has grown more concentrated. Reduced competition, in turn, has produced content standardization and a power imbalance in which a few companies possess significant influence over cultural narratives, what content gets produced and how it is distributed.

Examples of corporate consolidation include Disney’s acquisition of 21st Century Fox, AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner and the merger of CBS and Viacom. These deals have consolidated control over a vast array of media properties, reducing the number of independent players in the market.

A few large companies, such as Disney, Comcast (which owns NBCUniversal) and Netflix, dominate various aspects of the entertainment industry. These companies control a substantial share of film production, television networks, streaming services and theme parks, making it difficult for smaller players to compete.

The emergence of digital platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ has further concentrated the entertainment sector. These platforms have vast resources to produce original content and acquire rights to existing content, creating a competitive environment where only a few can thrive. In addition, tech giants like Apple and Amazon have entered the entertainment space, adding to the concentration.

Vertical integration, where companies control multiple stages of production and distribution, has also contributed to concentration. For example, a company like Disney not only produces content but also distributes it through its own streaming service (Disney+), giving it significant control over the entire supply chain.

With a smaller number of big players and platforms, promising talent must compete for jobs at a small number of corporations.

• Seven percent of all U.S. newspaper employees now work for a single newspaper—The New York Times—with 3,000 newspapers disappearing since 2005.
• In the world of Broadway and major theatrical productions, a significant percentage of theater professionals work for a few major production companies. The Shubert Organization, one of the largest theater owners and producers on Broadway, along with the Nederlander Organization and Jujamcyn Theaters, control a substantial share of Broadway theaters. These organizations employ a large portion of actors, directors, stagehands and other theater professionals working in New York City.
• In the magazine industry, companies like Condé Nast (publisher of Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and others) and Hearst Communications (publisher of Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Harper’s Bazaar and others) employ a large share of magazine journalists, editors, photographers and other professionals. The concentration of magazine employment in these few companies mirrors the broader consolidation trend seen in media.
• The music industry is highly concentrated, with three major record labels—Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group—dominating the market. These big three collectively control around 70 percent of the global music market and employ a significant portion of music producers, artists and executives. This concentration has a significant impact on what music gets produced, distributed and promoted.
• The major film studios, which historically included Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Paramount, Sony Pictures and 20th Century Fox, have dominated film and television production for decades. These studios employ a vast number of professionals, from directors and writers to production crews and marketing teams. With Disney’s acquisition of 21st Century Fox, the concentration has increased, with Disney now controlling a substantial portion of the industry.
• In the realm of digital streaming, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video are dominant players, employing a significant number of content creators, including writers, producers, directors and actors. These platforms not only distribute content but also produce a growing share of the shows and movies consumed globally, concentrating employment in the hands of these tech giants.
• The book publishing industry is also concentrated, with the big five publishers—Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette and Macmillan—controlling a large share of the market. These publishers employ a significant percentage of authors, editors, marketers and other publishing professionals.

Despite the rise of the Internet and various digital platforms, there are fewer ways for new talent to break through. Apart from the Times and The Wall Street Journal, serious arts coverage and book reviews have largely disappeared from the mainstream press, legacy media, public radio and local newspapers.

It’s no accident, Gioia observes, that the big conglomerates are buying up the rights to various song catalogs. Bob Dylan recently sold his rights for $300 million. Companies like Hipgnosis Songs Fund, Universal Music Group and Sony Music Publishing have aggressively pursued the acquisition of music catalogs as part of their growth strategies.

Song catalogs generate steady, predictable and consistent revenue through royalties from various sources, including streaming services, radio play, television, movies, commercials and public performances. As streaming has become the dominant mode of music consumption, older songs continue to generate substantial income, often with less volatility than newer music.

The rise of platforms like Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music has dramatically increased the accessibility of music. Investors see value in owning music that is frequently streamed, especially as more listeners rediscover or continue to enjoy older music.

Older songs are often licensed for use in movies, TV shows, commercials and video games, providing additional revenue streams. These songs often carry nostalgic value, making them attractive for marketing and entertainment.

In some jurisdictions, revenue generated from the sale of song catalogs may be taxed as capital gains rather than ordinary income, offering a more favorable tax rate. This can make selling catalogs an attractive option for musicians, while investors benefit from the potential for long-term appreciation.

---

A winner-take-all economy, where a small number of top performers captures a disproportionately large share of rewards, has been as triumphant in the world of the arts and culture as in the business world. A few artists, authors, musicians and filmmakers garner most of the financial success, leaving the majority to struggle.

In the music industry, platforms like Spotify and Apple Music have dramatically changed how artists make money. A study by Citigroup found that in 2017, artists earned only 12 percent of the $43 billion generated by the music industry. The top 1 percent of artists on Spotify receive around 77 percent of all artist revenue on the platform, with megastars like Taylor Swift and Drake reaping millions, while lesser-known artists struggle to make a living.

According to a 2020 report by Rolling Stone, the top 0.1 percent of artists on Spotify earn over $100,000 annually from streaming, while the bottom 97 percent earn less than $1,000 per year.

The live music scene also reflects this disparity. Top performers command enormous fees for concerts and festivals, while emerging or niche musicians may barely cover their expenses after touring.

In the literary world, a few authors, like J.K. Rowling, Stephen King and James Patterson, dominate best-seller lists and receive massive advances from publishers. According to a 2016 report by the Authors Guild, the median income for all published authors was just $6,080, with full-time authors earning a median of $20,300, far below what is needed to sustain a middle-class lifestyle. A Nielsen report from 2017 showed that the top 1 percent of authors accounted for 38 percent of all book sales.

While self-publishing platforms have democratized the ability to publish, they have also intensified the winner-take-all dynamic. A few self-published authors, like Andy Weir of The Martian fame, have found success, but most self-published books sell fewer than 100 copies.

The film industry is another area where a small number of blockbuster movies generate the majority of revenue. In 2019, the top 10 grossing films, all produced by Disney, accounted for nearly 30 percent of the entire global box office revenue. Meanwhile, independent films, despite critical acclaim, often struggle to find an audience and make a profit.

The visual arts world is also skewed heavily towards a small number of artists. For instance, in 2021, just 20 artists accounted for 32 percent of the global auction sales, with works by artists like Pablo Picasso, Jean-Michel Basquiat and Andy Warhol fetching tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the majority of artists struggle to sell their work at all, let alone at a price that would support their livelihood.

---

Beset by rising costs, saturated markets, intense competition and declining attendance, the culture industry is in trouble. But the industry’s response to its broken business model has exacerbated the very problems it seeks to address. By prioritizing short-term profits, data-driven content creation and consolidation, the industry has sacrificed cultural richness, innovation and diversity. To restore its vitality, the industry must place greater emphasis on creative freedom and genuine artistic inclusivity, while also exploring new revenue models that support sustainable growth.

In response to declining profits, especially in the film and music industries, companies have increasingly focused on producing blockbuster movies, sequels and franchise content, which are seen as safer bets for generating high returns. This approach prioritizes short-term profits over long-term artistic diversity and innovation. However, this has led to market saturation, where audiences become fatigued by repetitive content, diminishing the industry’s overall cultural impact and creative vitality.

The focus on blockbusters has sidelined smaller, more innovative projects that might not guarantee immediate returns but could contribute to the cultural richness and diversity of the industry. This has resulted in a homogenization of content, where originality and risk-taking are often sacrificed for formulaic, commercially driven products.

The rise of streaming services, both in music and video, has fundamentally altered how content is consumed and monetized. While these platforms have increased accessibility, they have also led to a race to the bottom in terms of pricing. Subscription models offer vast amounts of content for a low monthly fee, which has devalued individual works and reduced revenue for creators. This model prioritizes quantity over quality, encouraging a flood of content that is often less impactful.

The decline in physical sales of music, films and books has significantly impacted revenue. While digital sales and streaming have grown, they have not fully compensated for the loss of higher-margin physical products. This shift has forced the industry to rely more heavily on touring, merchandising and other ancillary revenue streams, which are also under pressure from changing consumer behaviors.

The reliance on data and algorithms to predict consumer preferences has led to content being tailored to what is perceived as popular rather than what is innovative or culturally significant. While this approach can maximize short-term engagement, it often results in content that is formulaic and lacks depth, diminishing the overall cultural value of the industry’s output.

The algorithmic approach reduces the chance for audiences to discover new and unexpected works, as content is recommended based on past behavior rather than encouraging exploration. This has led to a feedback loop where only the most popular content gets seen, further entrenching the dominance of established franchises and reducing opportunities for new voices to emerge.

Cultural institutions traditionally relied on philanthropy to support their operations, but shifts in philanthropic priorities have led to a decline in donations. This has forced many organizations to cut back on programming, staff and outreach efforts, weakening their ability to fulfill their cultural missions. At the same time, universities, which helped subsidize the arts by hiring practicing artists, authors, filmmakers, journalists, musicians and poets, are backing away from that role.

---

What can be done to spur innovation in the arts during a period of diminishing audiences, declining philanthropic support and industry consolidation? Here are some suggestions, other than increased public funding, that might make a difference.

• Rethink arts education, making it a bigger part of a college education and expose more students to kinds of art, film, music and theater that aren’t typically streamed or produced.
• Establish fairer compensation and revenue sharing models that pay higher royalty rates to those emerging artists and authors with lower sales and streams.
• Encourage and fund the independent artists, filmmakers and musicians who will push boundaries and explore new ideas outside of the commercial mainstream through grants, residencies and platforms that highlight emerging talent.
• Establish creative hubs, incubators and residencies that can provide emerging artists with the resources, training and networking opportunities they need to succeed, by offering affordable studio space, access to technology and workshops on marketing, legal issues and financial management.
• Create crowdfunding platforms, the equivalent of Substack in publishing, that can connect creators directly with their audience, allowing them to bypass traditional gatekeepers and maintain creative control.
• Develop and support platforms and online marketplaces that bypass traditional industry gatekeepers, allowing for the direct distribution of content and providing venues for experimental work.
• Bring art to the public through public installations, pop-up galleries and community-based events that make the arts more accessible and encourage broader participation.
• Forge partnerships with unconventional partners, including influencers and nonprofit organizations, including hospitals and social service agencies.

From my vantage point, among the biggest challenges is the concentration of the arts in a small number of major cities. Decentralizing the arts and spreading them more widely across the country might significantly expand opportunities for artists, authors and performers by creating a more equitable and diverse cultural landscape. Here are some ways to do that:

• Develop regional arts hubs, perhaps connected to universities.
• Incentivize smaller communities to designate and invest in cultural districts to serve as centers for arts activities, including galleries, theaters, music venues and studios.
• Support community-based arts programs, including mobile art studios, community theater productions, public art projects and arts festivals that celebrate local talent.
• Increase funding and support for regional museums, theaters and cultural institutions that serve as anchors for the local arts scene, providing opportunities for local artists to display their work or perform.
• Establish and expand touring programs that bring performances, exhibitions and workshops to smaller cities and rural areas.
• Facilitate cultural exchange programs between major cities and smaller communities, so that artists from big cities can spend time creating and teaching in smaller towns, while regional artists can gain exposure and experience in major urban centers.
• Require major museums to share artworks and artifacts currently held in storage with local and regional museums.

Historically, innovation in the arts has come from the margins, driven by individuals and communities in poor, rural or marginalized areas. These communities have frequently produced groundbreaking art forms and movements that challenge the status quo and bring fresh perspectives to the cultural landscape. This was true of the blues, bluegrass, jazz, gospel, hip-hop, folk and outsider art, the Chicano mural movement, and much more.

By spreading the arts more widely, we can ensure that creativity and innovation are nurtured in diverse environments, which will enrich the entire country’s cultural fabric.