BZZZZZZZZZZ

How do artists become known? At what point have they passed through the emerging phase and into the established phase? In the art world we tend to talk about the same artists over and over again (Warhol, Beuys, Rauschenberg, etc.), but occasionally a young artist receives some buzz. This has always seemed to be an unquantifiable phenomenon. Over brunch a few curatorial assistants talk about some street art they saw in Dumbo, then again at the seasonal gallery openings; a gallery owner overhears and asks for more information. Next thing you know that street artist, Swoon in this case, has a solo exhibition at Deitsch Projects. That’s buzz. A kind of hum outside of the mainstream that sometimes, but not always, is harnessed by institutions in order to make claims to the new and hip. More often it’s fleeting, befitting something named after the sound of flying through the air.

My understanding of buzz clearly contradicts that of researchers, as represented by a recent article in the New York Times, “Mapping the Cultural Buzz: How Cool is That?” Using 300,000 commercial photographs from 6,000 events to evaluate what was buzz-worthy, which they seem to define as synonymous with news-worthy and purchase-worthy, they unsurprisingly concluded that the areas surrounding such cultural meccas as Lincoln Center and Times Square were the most concentrated places of buzz. This is oddly circuitous logic to pinpoint something so ephemeral. Of course these places were photographed by commercial news outlets! And of course celebrities attended! But that’s not necessarily buzz! At best, it’s publicity—good publicity, but hardly out of the ordinary. The creative class (who knows how they define that!) shouldn’t be delimited by what paparazzi are willing to cover and where they’re willing to travel. If it’s the creative class they’re concerned with, shouldn’t they be looking at the geographic location of those who not only consume but also create these events? Does anyone even live in Times Square anymore? (I’m actually curious about that.)

It seems to me that a completely different type of data-set is needed to quantify something like buzz. Commercial outlets should definitely be a component, but is the press really the best source these researchers could access? Music seems rife with possibilities in this area. Researchers could gather data on a band’s album sales just before and after a concert in a particular city. Taking into account advertising and news coverage, they could also look at hits on the band’s webpage, Google search statistics and (because I’m sure this is also about revenue-generating possibilities) purchases on ITunes, EMusic and other digital outlets. Almost all of this information is sortable by geographic location through IP addresses and billing zip codes. (Yes, they’re watching you and they know what you like to buy.) They may also want to look at continued sales in a particular area over the next few weeks, since one usually hears of buzz as something that is generated over space and time. If I see a great Bon Iver concert, buy his album and tell ten friends and they tell ten friends, etc., then more and more little dots will appear on a data map until it either stops or reaches such critical mass that Prince anoints him the heir to the singer-songwriter throne. (I believe that’s what Malcolm Gladwell called the tipping point.)

Most problematic is the continued focus on those large institutions as Very Important Places. They aren’t the sole producers of culture, nor should they be. I won’t deny their importance, but I do object to the idea that we should look to them for our (or any) city’s future. Cultivation of the creative class (if that is indeed possible) shouldn’t be formulated through the paradigms of bureaucracies like Lincoln Center or The Met (both of them) but through support of alternative spaces, residencies and those people that make this vibrant, diverse cultural community possible.