Good or Profitable

Today I had a lunch meeting with a sister station to ArtSound here in Melbourne (more on that later). As we talked what struck me was the theme of good versus profitable in the arts. A few years ago I read a very excellent article in the New York Review of Books by Norman Mailer. Norman (I call him that in private) was reviewing the latest Tom Wolfe novel (I forget which one) but he was doing so in the context of the elusive 'Great American Novel'. In this context he examined possible contenders for this title, not in the traditional sense of setting or content (ie 'The naked and the dead' may be discounted by some judges as the majority of action takes place outside of America)(while others would argue about the internal country that is taken with each of the characters) but instead the sense of success.

In doing so he admits in opening a Pandora's box of complexity and issues colouring the definition and recognition of success. Norman suggested there were two ways to measure success; either by the quality of the work or financial return from the work. So by way of illustration we could say JK Rowling is a successful author, in the sense that her books have made richer than the Queen of England. But does that mean her work will be held in high regard in a 100 years time? Are they actually held in high regard now? What if JK Rowling wrote something else how would that measure in terms of units sold to Harry Potter?

So in todays terms a successful writer is not necessarily a writer with an outstanding talent or ability, it may probably just be someone who can sell units.
Myself I don't agree completely with Mr Mailers assessment or his definitions. I think maybe there is room for both. In fact to the best of my knowledge the so called masters of English literature from previous centuries were all pro-capitalism and would have or did happily 'sell out'.

But the conversation I had at lunch was in terms of community radio and the quality of presenters on board. So in a way we were discussing improving the caliber of presenters, but doing so in order to gain more funding or sponsorship. So its an interesting question, if there is a balance to be found between commercial success and professional success - what are the ratios?