Re: [AML] Re: AML-List Digest, Vol 31, Issue 16

Chris Heimerdinger wrote:

>>>
Oh, I forgot, your creative writing teacher taught you that was "selling
out." What a shame. Because the greatest art is much more readily created
when the person can devote all their waking energies to it.

Hey, here's an idea! Why not combine the best skills and craftmanship of
storytelling--the most profound and moving ideas ever conceived--with
popular sentiment and meeting the demands of your target audience??? Boy,
what a SECRET! Now everyone can make MILLIONS! But alas, it can't be that
simple, right? No way. If it was, one might sacrifice one's status as an
"intellectual," a consumer whose attention can only be captured by the
esoteric, the obtuse, and the marvelously "indefinable." I swear, this
kind of intellectualism is akin to self-gratification, which must be
forever nurtured by things ever more tantalizing and "different." I
believe this frame of mind turns art into one's vice. And therefore
becomes something self-destructive rather than uplifting. Those with such
sentiments usually will NEVER even CONSIDER giving up R-rated films. (Oh
boy. NOW I've done it. Stirred up the huns like hornets. Back into the
foxhole. Check the amunition. Good. Still enough and to spare.)
<<<


Chris, I was actually on your side up until you posted this.

But not any more.

If you're interested, here's why.

I can't speak for arguments you've had in the past with others, but the
condescension you exhibit in this post is far beyond anything I think I've
earned from you. My only request is that if you want to spout off at me,
please address what I've actually said rather than the ghosts of arguments
(and arguers) past.

If you've followed discussion on AML-List prior to the last week or so,
you know the following about me:

* I vigorously defend the right of every Mormon artist to pursue whatever
audience they want.

* I vigorously defend the right of every Mormon artist to pursue whatever
forms and conventions they believe will meet their audience's demand.

* I vigorously defend the right of every Mormon audience to like whatever
they want to, and condemn elitist name-calling as both pointless and
unbecoming.

* I believe the Mormon audience represents a wider market than is
currently served by LDS publishers.

* I wish the currently defined market all the good will in the world, and
continued service from the artists that serve them.

* I think the currently defined LDS market is fairly narrow in scope.

* I think there are more good and righteous LDS buyers than are dreamed of
in the currently defined LDS marketplace, and that they deserve the same
kind of passionate art that has been produced for the current LDS
marketplace.

* I believe that expanded market has been neither defined nor well served,
and those who first try to meet that audience's demands will work in
ignominy for some years yet to come.

-----

Here are some things you probably don't know about me:

* This past Saturday I taught two workshops for the League of Utah Writers
annual convention where I vehemently argued for understanding 1) the
expectations of your target audience, and 2) the conventions of the
markets that serve them. It was called "Turning Research Into Writing: A
Pragmatist's Guide."

* I am currently employed as a marketing professional for a global
software company where I actively pursue customer feedback so we can build
product that actually meets market demand. My livelihood depends on
identifying and meeting market need.

* As a function of the job I consider not only immediate customer wants,
but long-term market movements and future directions.

* I evangelize both for my products, and for the future market
opportunities that I see.

* I believe that we create the world we want to live in; if it doesn't
meet our needs, then it is our responsibility to change it through your
own efforts.

-----

Here are some things I *have not* said, with notes on what I *did* say:

** That Richard Dutcher is the be-all and end-all of Mormon cinema.**

I think Richard is a talented filmmaker who has made some significant
mistakes in his bid to expand LDS cinema. He has failed to understand
market dynamics, and pushed the wrong audience to accept a different
esthetic. This has hurt the marketability of products that I think have
value and interest to many good and righteous Mormons.

I believe that Richard has a valid and worthwhile vision (just as Gerald
Lund, Chris Heimerdinger and others have), and that his films can and
should be able to exist side-by-side with other LDS films.

I believe excellent work is being done my an increasing number of LDS
filmmakers, but I also think some dreadful work is being done by LDS
filmmakers. I won't praise bad work just because it's made by a Mormon,
nor would I expect anyone else to. I would expect a film critic to
actually see the film he's declaiming, though.

I happen to prefer Richard's films to the majority of what I've seen
elsewhere because I admire what I think he's trying to accomplish. His art
better meets my demand than Brother Lund's does.


** That so-called "intellectual" or "art-driven" work is inherently better
than audience-driven work. **

My rule for judging the quality of a work is whether it succeeds on its
own terms--whatever those terms may be. What I argue for is that both
artists and audiences understand what those terms are so they can make
effective judgments about the things they consume.

There are plenty of examples of good and bad in both. All I demand is that
the artist understand the game he's playing in rather than complaining
that his audience doesn't understand him.


** That the poor, benighted masses have no sense or right to their
opinion. **

Like what you want, for the reasons you want. But please allow others of
us to like our own thing, too.

-----

Here's where I think I disagree with you.

I see the market as being underdeveloped, and believe that it *can* expand
beyond what it is now. I don't believe that we are serving all members of
the LDS audience. Just because we understand one market segment doesn't
mean that everything should be built for that one market segment.

I respect the extent of the current market at the same time that I want to
see it grow. I *do not* want to see current art or artists pushed out of
the marketplace. Rather, I want to see the market expand to accommodate a
wider potential audience. With a bigger pie, more people can be served to
their satisfaction.

I have no idea whether that larger market will coalesce or not. I think
the only way to find out is to produce works for them, find new ways to
market to them, and have enough vision and patience for the market to
emerge--even if that takes thirty years or more.

I see nothing wrong with wanting an expanded marketplace, liking a
different form of storytelling than is currently offered, or encouraging
people who write stories I like to continue to develop those stories.

I dispute that the "majority" of LDS people are defined by the
demographics of the market segment you serve. I believe the majority of
the *marketplace* is defined by the demographics described above, but I
think it's incorrect to assume that the known market and the overall
populace are the same thing.

I don't believe that success for one Mormon artist necessary means failure
for another. Yes, there are a limited number of dollars in the currently
defined marketplace. That leaves two choices--either produce for the
existing, well-defined audience (a good, solid choice) or attempt to
expand the market to bring in new dollars that are not currently being
targeted (also a good, solid choice--though one that is much more
speculative at this point).

Granted, that means current dollars will be stretched further and (short
term) opportunities will likely contract as the market figures out how to
expand itself. But that is a temporary growing pain that is indicative of
the existence of that larger projected market.

-----

I really don't care what you write or for who--that's between you, your
audience, your publisher and your god. As long as you're satisfied that
what you're doing is right, then you should charge full steam ahead and
produce according to the dictates of your own goals and conscience.

But I am equally convinced that others should be afforded the same right
that you claim as your own--and that the market can and will expand to
allow for a broader range of tastes than it currently supports.

Disagree if you want--that's your right and your choice. But I will not be
bullied by you or anyone else to accept that there is only one solution to
a problem, or that yours is the only possible good, right and true option.

-----

>>>"Who you callin' not 'mainstream," you punk!?<<<

I never characterized you or anyone else that way and you know it. I said
that there is a larger mainstream than you apparently recognize, because I
feel just as mainstream Mormon as anyone else.

If it's your contention that I don't belong, or that I don't have a right
to an opinion because I am not part of your market segment, then I simply
and respectfully disagree.

But I will not leave the Church because you think I don't belong, nor will
I hate members of the Church because they have opinions, ideas or
methodologies different from my own.


>>>Artists have always been beholden to their patrons and customers. <<<

I have never said otherwise. I only said that an artist has to make a
choice whether to pursue this customer or that one--and that the cost of
pursuing *that* customer may be a smaller market segment, fewer available
dollars and less recognition from a marketing engine designed for *this*
customer.


>>>I wish I could invite you all to a personal screening of "Passage to
Zarahemla." Maybe someday before it officially opens, I'll do just that.
<<<

Please do. I will attend if invited (and available).


>>>Yes, it's aimed at "mainstream" Church membership. But I swear on my
biggest toe, this does not mean that I had to ignore the most
sophisticated techniques of storytelling. Nor that some of its themes are
not "edgy" and highly personal. <<<

No one said you did ignore these things.

I have heard some people say that their experience tells them that
much--perhaps even most--art intended for general audience has been
unsatisfying to them. I even heard one person say that his experience
leads him to believe that art created as a testimony serves a different
purpose (and audience) than art created according to different goals, and
that he finds art that's "testimony-first" to be less satisfying. That's
his right to believe if he wants. By and large, I tend to agree.

Every testimony is personal, and "edgy" means different things to
different people. But I would be interested to see how you define
sophisticated techniques of storytelling--especially after being so
vehement that such techniques are not appreciated by the audience you
serve. There's a dissonance there that I'd like to understand.


>>>These are intelligent thoughts, Scott, but may be spiced with a bit of
wishful thinking.<<<

They're spiced with a *lot* of wishful thinking. I choose to see
opportunity rather than roadblock. I choose to think of it as visionary,
though you can characterize it as naive or self-delusional if you want.

But as a matter of market research and understanding your audience, I
would suggest you missed the boat on your entire post. The AML-List is one
of the more conservative forums you're likely to come across among the
"literary" crowd. We tend to appreciate a fairly wide spectrum of art,
from the very conservative to the very aggressive and even experimental.
Nearly everyone here feels like their slant is underrepresented, which is
usually a good sign of balance in the discussion. We expect the be
stretched--to both extremes.

It makes no sense to me to go to a forum that values discussion of a
broader literature and attack them for that broadness. It seems like poor
market analysis to me, and begs a host of questions about other market
observations and assumptions.

It appears that you came in spoiling for a fight, and got what you wanted.
Perhaps you see yourself as Samuel the Lamanite, preaching simple truths
to the corrupt before sweeping off the battlements and into legend. And
maybe you are; only time will tell.

Or maybe you're just another arrogant, self-important artist who can't
tolerate that others may see the world differently than you do--sort of
the way you seem to characterize Richard Dutcher. Birds of a feather,
perhaps; different only in the color, but not the stripe.

Each of us has to decide for ourselves, which is the beauty and challenge
of art. We can only judge based on the works placed before us.

Scott Parkin