I agree that a problematic foundation of the free speech vs. author’s/publisher’s responsibility to hold a respectable image comes down to audience’s flawed perception of authors themselves as marketable public figures. For example, the Sydney Writers’ Festival is just tiled with people’s faces. I find this frustrating: the books and arguments discussed are overshadowed by the authors as weird public personalities – and some authors (often the ones with less complex artistic pieces) revel in this! The obsession with optics is a natural consequence from the focus on the author’s public visibility. There’s a strangely corporate echo in the publisher’s prioritisation of ‘saving face’ over faith in their author’s work: I say ‘strangely’ because the arts sphere tends to keep itself as far away from the oppressive conservative corporate landscape. I’m not sure what to make of that odd parallel yet. Thank you.
I agree that a problematic foundation of the free speech vs. author’s/publisher’s responsibility to hold a respectable image comes down to audience’s flawed perception of authors themselves as marketable public figures. For example, the Sydney Writers’ Festival is just tiled with people’s faces. I find this frustrating: the books and arguments discussed are overshadowed by the authors as weird public personalities – and some authors (often the ones with less complex artistic pieces) revel in this! The obsession with optics is a natural consequence from the focus on the author’s public visibility. There’s a strangely corporate echo in the publisher’s prioritisation of ‘saving face’ over faith in their author’s work: I say ‘strangely’ because the arts sphere tends to keep itself as far away from the oppressive conservative corporate landscape. I’m not sure what to make of that odd parallel yet. Thank you.