Google and facebook take over role of galleries, publishers and impresarios

For most artists, it is an ideal. Being represented by a gallery. Writers have their sights set on a contract with a publisher. Musicians look at labels eagerly and theatre-makers queue up for an impresario.

Creators have a love-hate relationship with such intermediaries. Because while the average creative professional would be willing to spare a toe in exchange for a spot with a gallery or publisher, at the same time they also complain bitterly. Galleries would do nothing and still pocket 40% of the selling price. A publisher pays a writer about 10% of the selling price of a book. While that writer himself still has to work hard for promotion. For musicians and theatre-makers, the situation is not much different.

Mediators put tight restrictions on creators. They do not want art buyers to see the work in the gallery and then buy, at a lower price, directly from the artist. Or that they organise presentation days or showcases where artists present themselves. While theatres then book them without their involvement. They want to prevent this by increasingly strict rules and contracts. As a result, creators are restricted in their freedom.

Mediators are also increasingly looking at constituency and exposure. As a creator without any name, with a poorly visited website and hardly any followers on social media, you don't stand a chance. They mainly opt for "low-hanging fruit". Artists, performers or writers who are easy to sell because they are already known to the public. Well-known names that sell themselves.

A catch 22, then. As a start-up talent, you have little name yet. An intermediary can do well to help you build it. But they don't want you because you are not yet known. For creators who do have that fame, they line up. But they can actually do fine without it.

I wonder if galleries, impresarios, labels and publishing houses still fit in these times. They were always the link between audience and creator at a time when it was not possible for the average aficionado to get his dose of culture any other way. Simply because he did not know where to find it.

But now there is the internet. Google, facebook and youtube offer everyone ample opportunities to search for culture themselves. Without the intervention of intermediaries. And creators have countless options to show their work to the public. Without high costs or complicated technology.

Mediators stand by and watch. Trying to use rules to avert the doom that inevitably comes their way. Better they should reflect on their right to exist and their role in a changing cultural landscape.

And the creators? Them, I would advise them not to be blinded by the status and convenience that being affiliated with an intermediary seems to bring. You can set your sights on 1 of the coveted spots at a gallery, label or impresario. And then find that you don't manage to get in. Or, if you do succeed, that it certainly does not lead to a carefree existence full of fame and with a good income.

Better you start to establish yourself as an entrepreneur. And work on building your own constituency and brand awareness. So that you are free to take it your own way. And so that the proceeds of your work end up entirely in your own pocket instead of others'.