Good read. Appreciated how cohesive this was. Helped contextualize how it fits into the rest of the world's evolution in culture, tech, and economics. I've been thinking about Fever a lot the last few months. I worry that as this expands to fill the gap of struggling arts world, we will be faced with this model or aesthetic being the future of performance and fine art in general.
In any other situation, a hit or miss gimmicky experience that feels touristy and maybe scammy is not that big of a deal and frankly nothing new. However, in this context, they aren't just filling the role of flashy entertainment, Fever is replacing and posturing itself as 'real' art. I don't want to be pretentious about art or purely old fashion but, as you mention in this article, they have seized an opportunity to capitalize on the arts lack of funding. Coming in as a way to help something like classical music is frustrating because, not only is it often lesser quality than a local orchestra company, it is taking the money that could be used for the arts in the first place.
It feels similar to in Education where we are so underfunded that investing in AI feels like a viable solution in the short term. But the redistribution from funding away from education and into these tech programs is also the problem. We could cut the middle man. If we properly funded public education or the arts we wouldn't have these gaps and problems to this extent to begin with.
Candle light music shows, immersive Van Gogh, and many of these experiences are extremely fake deep. Algorithmic recommendations aren't exposing you to anything outside your bubble. This the fast fashion movement entering the arts. This is a restaurant who's food isn't good but the plate is very instagram-able. The faux-wood table from Wayfair that looks vintage but is poorly made. This is the future of the arts in an Elon Musk/Sam Altman world.
Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful comment, Wesley! The piece was definitely business-centric, as I generally try to keep my analysis professional-minded.
That being said, on a more personal level, I tend to agree with you. Slowly but surely, the overall "immersive", Instagram-first trend is displacing more traditional forms of art and entertainment and capturing a larger share of consumers'mindshare and spending. But are Fever and similar companies causing this shift in the firs place or simply making the most of it?
Museums have been facing this conundrum for a while. To make up for aging audiences and diminishing cultural relevance, they went for so-called "Instagram traps", fully-fledged immersive experiences (e.g., Kusama's Infinity Mirrored Room, now imitated everywhere), and branded exhibitions (e.g., Disney+ at London's National Gallery, Pokémon x Van Gogh Museum...). One could argue they lost some of their cultural cachet in the process. But should they sit idle and lament the good old days, or go with the flow and adapt to the new public's perhaps more shallow expectations?
This isn't specific to live or location-based entertainment either. I think the same Catch-22 situation is at play in book publishing (do you go the Young Adult, romance route?), film (do you go the micro-drama route?), etc. Anywhere you look, producers need to ask themselves if they'd rather be "right" with elevated art, or rich with the entertainment the audiences are actually asking and paying for.
As you point out, it ultimately speaks to "the arts' lack of funding." Like you, I value museums, theater, orchestras, opera... and would like them to not only endure but thrive. But so many of these cultural institutions are really holding on by a thread through public subsidies only. Culturally, priceless. Commercially, zombies. How long can/should we support them when consumers are voting with their feet and wallets?
I do think there are intesting cases out there of cultural players that have managed to adapt to the times, and I hope to feature some of them in this newsletter over time. But they are more the exception than the norm.
Good read. Appreciated how cohesive this was. Helped contextualize how it fits into the rest of the world's evolution in culture, tech, and economics. I've been thinking about Fever a lot the last few months. I worry that as this expands to fill the gap of struggling arts world, we will be faced with this model or aesthetic being the future of performance and fine art in general.
In any other situation, a hit or miss gimmicky experience that feels touristy and maybe scammy is not that big of a deal and frankly nothing new. However, in this context, they aren't just filling the role of flashy entertainment, Fever is replacing and posturing itself as 'real' art. I don't want to be pretentious about art or purely old fashion but, as you mention in this article, they have seized an opportunity to capitalize on the arts lack of funding. Coming in as a way to help something like classical music is frustrating because, not only is it often lesser quality than a local orchestra company, it is taking the money that could be used for the arts in the first place.
It feels similar to in Education where we are so underfunded that investing in AI feels like a viable solution in the short term. But the redistribution from funding away from education and into these tech programs is also the problem. We could cut the middle man. If we properly funded public education or the arts we wouldn't have these gaps and problems to this extent to begin with.
Candle light music shows, immersive Van Gogh, and many of these experiences are extremely fake deep. Algorithmic recommendations aren't exposing you to anything outside your bubble. This the fast fashion movement entering the arts. This is a restaurant who's food isn't good but the plate is very instagram-able. The faux-wood table from Wayfair that looks vintage but is poorly made. This is the future of the arts in an Elon Musk/Sam Altman world.
Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful comment, Wesley! The piece was definitely business-centric, as I generally try to keep my analysis professional-minded.
That being said, on a more personal level, I tend to agree with you. Slowly but surely, the overall "immersive", Instagram-first trend is displacing more traditional forms of art and entertainment and capturing a larger share of consumers'mindshare and spending. But are Fever and similar companies causing this shift in the firs place or simply making the most of it?
Museums have been facing this conundrum for a while. To make up for aging audiences and diminishing cultural relevance, they went for so-called "Instagram traps", fully-fledged immersive experiences (e.g., Kusama's Infinity Mirrored Room, now imitated everywhere), and branded exhibitions (e.g., Disney+ at London's National Gallery, Pokémon x Van Gogh Museum...). One could argue they lost some of their cultural cachet in the process. But should they sit idle and lament the good old days, or go with the flow and adapt to the new public's perhaps more shallow expectations?
This isn't specific to live or location-based entertainment either. I think the same Catch-22 situation is at play in book publishing (do you go the Young Adult, romance route?), film (do you go the micro-drama route?), etc. Anywhere you look, producers need to ask themselves if they'd rather be "right" with elevated art, or rich with the entertainment the audiences are actually asking and paying for.
As you point out, it ultimately speaks to "the arts' lack of funding." Like you, I value museums, theater, orchestras, opera... and would like them to not only endure but thrive. But so many of these cultural institutions are really holding on by a thread through public subsidies only. Culturally, priceless. Commercially, zombies. How long can/should we support them when consumers are voting with their feet and wallets?
I do think there are intesting cases out there of cultural players that have managed to adapt to the times, and I hope to feature some of them in this newsletter over time. But they are more the exception than the norm.