An Artistic Analysis of Four Tech Investors

Posted on April 2, 2015 by adammarx13

Seeing the World Through Artistic Eyes

Part of being an art student is that you inevitably see art everywhere, whether it’s meant to be noticed as art or not. This goes for anything—drawings, graffiti, cars, apps—and most recently for me, Twitter profile avatars.

Twitter avatar profile pictures of Fred Wilson (top left), Brad Feld (top right), Hunter Walk (bottom left), and Marc Andreessen (bottom right)

As I was scrolling through my feed the other day, I saw a number of avatars go by, and my resulting thought process surprised even me—I thought wouldn’t it be cool to analyze those the way I used to analyze art pieces for my art history classes (well, cool is relative I suppose, but I’m an art nerd, so there). So that’s what today’s post is about: no talk of music, apps, or any major tech trends. Just an artistic analysis of the profile avatars of four tech investors. I wasn’t sure exactly how to order these, but I decided it would interesting to go according to an art history timeline, rather than simply by alphabetical order. Let the analyzing begin.

Fred Wilson

Fred Wilson‘s Twitter avatar is one of my favorites from an artistic perspective because of its striking power. I look at Wilson’s picture, which sets a large facial portrait against a lime-green background, and think immediately of the work of modern Austrian painter Egon Schiele (something which I’ve tweeted about numerous times). For those unfamiliar with Schiele’s work, he redefined the concept of portraiture in the early 20th century by daring to accentuate bodily features way outside their normal proportions. Some common aspects of Schiele’s work are overly-large eyes, and a strong, set jawline, usually defined by a sharp contour, which can clearly be seen in his pieces “Self Portrait” (1910) and “Self Portrait with Physalis” (1912).

Egon Schiele; left: “Self Portrait” (1910); right: Self Portrait with Physalis” (1912)

Looking at Wilson’s picture, the enlarged eyes and clearly defined jawline fit the mold of Expressionism which Schiele helped to pioneer. The eyes are deep-set—almost sunken—but with a gleam that seems to burst from the canvas, made even brighter by the bold green that encapsulates the pupils. The cut jawline is mirrored at the top of the piece by raw, almost rugged strokes of brown making up Wilson’s hair. Yet while the zig-zag strokes chisel the top of the portrait in an almost sculpted way, the slight waviness of the hair on either side of Wilson’s heads help to capture a curved smoothness which bleeds out into the dynamism of the green background.

Fred Wilson Twitter avatar

The life of the piece, though, is centered in the eyes, and the cheeks. The eyes swirl knowingly—disjointed only by the large space between them. The cheeks meanwhile, glow warmly with the only hot colors on the canvas: a roughly hewn pink which darkens towards the face’s edges. Even the the portions of the piece where the paint seems too thin are almost indicative of Schiele’s practice of leaving paintings unfinished. Collectively, Wilson’s avatar contains deep traces of Expressionism roots, though nodding to a lighter palette than was typically used in Europe at the time.

It’s also worth noting, however, that Schiele is not the only art master represented. Henri Matisse seems to make an appearance as well, mostly in the nose-area. While the nose seems almost too large for the face surrounding it, it nonetheless conjures up images of Matisse’s “Portrait of Madame Matisse (The green line)” (1905), or even his “Self-Portrait in a Striped T-shirt” (1906). Intentional or not, I nonetheless look at Wilson’s picture and see Schiele’s Expressionism and Matisse’s Fauvism and Modernism.

Henri Matisse; left: “Portrait of Madame Matisse (The green line)” (1905); right: “Self-Portrait in a Striped T-shirt” (1906)

Brad Feld

Brad Feld‘s picture is similar to Wilson’s in that it’s a painted portrait. That, however, is where the artistic similarities end. Whereas Wilson’s piece drips of early 20th century Expressionism and Fauvism, Feld’s portrait exhibits a more mid-century style. The thinner mouth and quirky glasses add a Pop Art flavor to the portrait, a fact that’s exacerbated by the bright greens and purples that play through both the back and foreground.

Brad Feld Twitter avatar

While still set amid deeply defined contours, Feld’s jawline is nonetheless more curved and flowing than Wilson’s, and with the light stream of pink that follows the chin-line, Feld’s smile is captured perfectly. The curvature of the lower half of the portrait plays on the wavy strands of hair which sit at the top, floating in a controlled messiness which adds a sense of jubilance to the work.

The most striking feature, though, is Feld’s eyeline. Encased in straight-edged square glasses, the eyeline cleanly divides the portrait into two halves, thereby introducing a sense of order into an otherwise happy-go-lucky piece. The Andy Warhol-esque psychedelic color-scheme in the background is indicative of mid-’60s Pop, as is Feld’s mauve shirt collar. Seemingly taking direction from color-schemes like that in Warhol’s “Marilyn Monroe” (1962), Feld’s avatar bleeds with a real ’60s flavor.

Andy Warhol; “Marilyn Monroe” (1962)

Of particular note, though, is Feld’s smile, which reminds me of pieces by a famous Pop artist, though not one the mainstream is too familiar with. James Rosenquist emerged separately from Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein, but is notable for his use of “the grin,” which can be clearly seen in the baby portion of “F-111” (1964-65) and in President Kennedy’s smile in “President Elect” (1960-61). The grin which plays through Rosenquist’s pieces finds a home in Feld’s piece as well, framing the portrait in visions of Pop from all styles of the decade.

James Rosenquist; top: “President Elect” (1960-61); bottom: “F-111” (1964-65)

Hunter Walk

Hunter Walk‘s Twitter avatar isn’t hard to place; one look at it and the first thing any art student or aficionado would think is Roy Lichtenstein. The cartoonish quality of Walk’s picture is not only evident, but is the main focus of the piece itself. Whereas the previous pictures exhibited more subtle elements of the art movements which seem to be at play in them, here there is no question. The animated nature of the piece has a disarming effect on the viewer, making Walk’s smile seem all the more friendly.

Hunter Walk Twitter avatar

Much like Lichtenstein’s “Drowning Girl” (1963), Hunter Walk is portrayed in a series of curves and flowing lines. Though obviously different subject matter than the aforementioned painting, there is nonetheless a similar ebb and flow that connects the two. Walk’s hairline is jagged only in certain spots, leaving the rest to create a circular movement around his head. The dynamism that this movement contributes to the piece cannot be understated because it is precisely mirrored by his shoulders and neck tilt.

Roy Lichtenstein; “Drowning Girl” (1963)

Rather than appearing stilted and set, Walk seems to lean into the movement, adding to its run through the picture. Even the shadowing of his beard and smile accentuate the flow of the centripetal movement. The darker shade of gray used for the beard moves along the face smoothly in some areas, and yet is cut sharply in others, much like the movement of waves splashing up against a cliff. The smile, meanwhile, is simple, but creates an eddie around which the flowing contours of the beard and facial lines must move.

Perhaps most interesting of all, though, is the way in which Walk’s beard in the piece seems to harken back to Lichtenstein’s common use of pointillism. While clearly one solid color throughout, Walk’s beard is nonetheless styled and colored in such as way as to appear to be more individualized than it really is. When compared to Lichtenstein’s oil piece “I Can see the Whole Room…and There’s Nobody in It!” (1963), Walk’s avatar seems to take on a different sense of shadow. As the man in Lichtenstein’s painting is lightly shadowed along his face to create a deeper perspective, so too does Walk’s beard in his avatar create for him.

Roy Lichtenstein; “I Can See the Whole Room…and There’s Nobody in It!” (1963)

Marc Andreessen

Perhaps the most post-modern piece of the four is Marc Andreessen‘s avatar, done in a way which most would describe as “South Park-ish” owing to its cut-and-paste style. While this is actually a good description based on South Park popularizing the cut-and-paste style in the last couple decades, it begs the question of what does that mean artistically? Is it just a cartoon? If so, why doesn’t it look like Hunter Walk’s Twitter avatar, which also exhibits a clear, cartoonish quality?

Andreessen’s avatar is a mix of post-modern, cut-and-paste qualities, but it also employs a sense of Pop which is prevalent in the other avatars. The sharp, clean lines cast the picture in brisk light, asserting that it’s so simple, there must not be anything under the surface. But there is.

Marc Andreessen Twitter avatar

The cartoonish Pop quality hides the other influences which dance through the piece. The basic oval-shaped hands, straight-line eyebrows and simple circular head harken back to the bare-bones approach towards geometry of Cubism, while the flat, cut-and-paste quality is indicative of the Superflat movement. As Cubists like Pablo Picasso and Juan Gris attempted to unravel the notions of geometry in art, so too did post-modern artists like Takashi Murakami desire to understand depth in a different way.

Right: Pablo Picasso; “Girl Before a Mirror” (1932); left: Juan Gris; “Harlequin with Guitar” (1919)

The simple, circular curvature of Andreessen’s head in the avatar seem to mirror the circular head of the girl in Picasso’s “Girl Before a Mirror” (1932), while his egg-shaped eyes mirror those of the man in the Juan Gris painting, “Harlequin with Guitar” (1919). The flat quality of the avatar, however, jumps almost a hundred years forward, to the Superflat movement of the 2000s, pioneered by Murakami. As Murakami explored the flatness that depth could have in pieces like 2001’s “Tan Tan Bo,” so too does Andreessen’s avatar explore concepts of flatness and depth (perhaps without even knowing it). In its exploration of depth and geometry, Andreessen’s avatar is thus more artistic than it initially appears.

Takashi Murakami; “Tan Tan Bo” (2001)

Art and Tech Intertwined

Though these are just four analyses of four Twitter avatar’s it’s become clear that art and tech are more closely intertwined than perhaps initially thought. This might explain why I see pieces by Basquiat and other artists come up so often in the tech industry. But it may be even simpler than that—it may simply be that art resonates with people in the tech industry precisely because they are also in the business of creating as much as painters and sculptors are. Or maybe they just like how it looks, that’s a valid point too. In the end what matters is what you see when you look at pieces and avatars like this. For me, I see art that is deeper than what’s on the surface. What do you see?

Four Music Industry Posts Refocused

Posted on March 28, 2015 by adammarx13

This week I threw a lot of notions and facts about the music industry out there, so I thought I would take a moment today to help refocus on them. Rather than write another post and add to the pile of important things to understand, I thought it better to simply restructure this past week’s posts in an easier, more digestible way of reading them. Here’s a short list for a few posts that went up this week, with a short description of each.

1. Two Stories of Sexism in the Music Industry – Two stories of my own experience that illustrate the sexism and gender inequality in the music industry that needs to be rooted out and eliminated. As with the tech industry, the music business has refocused and taken aim at gender discrimination, but these two short examples prove how things need to be better.

The sexism problem that needs to be solved

2. The Lie of “Live Won’t Save Music” – The wonderful adage of “Live won’t save music”—and why it’s a flat-out lie. The dynamics of the “live” factor in the music business (including the economic realities), and why “Live won’t save music” only applies to those artists and music professionals still grasping at the old, obsolete business model. An examination on how people need to restructure their thoughts on the music business if they want to be able to create a new, more lucrative business model.

3. Why Isn’t the Music Business Fully Crowdfunded? – Inspired by some things which I heard VC Fred Wilson postulate during the LAUNCH festival earlier this month. Discussions of the freedom that crowdfunding has allowed artists, and why it’s contributing to a trend towards staying independent. More than that, though, an examination of how artists can leverage the dynamic of crowdfunding for a better return in their own pockets.

4. Tell Me Again How There’s No Monopoly in the Music Industry – A simple chart that shows the incredibly monopolistic spiderweb of the major record labels and their subjects. With SONY in blue, Universal Music Group in green, and Warner Music Group in red, it’s not hard to see how three CEO’s (of these respective companies) essentially control all the music in the mainstream. If that’s not a monopoly, I really don’t know what is.

(Click for larger preview)

The Big Three Major Labels and Their Subjects

New articles coming next week. There’s a lot more in the music industry to uncover, and definitely a lot more than needs to be changed.

The Lie of “Live Won’t Save Music”

Posted on March 25, 2015 by adammarx13

The Introduction

Yesterday, I posted my second article inspired by Fred Wilson’s comments to Jason Calacanis during LAUNCH, wherein I focused on his comments about Kickstarter regarding the music and movie industries. The post itself became too long to explain the economics of the paradigm (of the music industry, at least), so I figured it would be better to do so here in a more focused post. So let’s jump in.

The Lie

In the music business, there’s a well-known adage: “Live won’t save music.” This is the argument that many within the established major label machine use to fend off the assertion that free distribution of music would actually help the music industry in the new digital era. The argument is that artists can’t make enough on a live performance to offset losses they would see by distributing their music for free. And in some cases this is true; income from live shows may not be able to offset those losses…for the major label artists, who have huge stage crews, large arena shows, and a long list of people to pay back (not least of which is their record label).

The Secret

What industry professionals don’t tell you is that live shows are where artists have historically always made most of the money that goes into their pocket. Money from album sales most often gets paid back to the record label and company, whose “signing” of the artist was simply a monetary advance in the first place. In 1993, well-known artist/producer Steve Albini took aim at the expenses squeezed from artists in his essay “The Problem With Music.” Excerpts from the essay clearly detail how the real economics worked behind the scenes.

The Simple Economics

This simple economic reality means two things: 1) That it’s true that major label artists like Beyoncé and Robin Thicke may very well have a hard time making any real money from live shows and will possibly need to continue to rely on the age-old system’s business practices, and 2) That newer, increasingly independent artists can leverage this new business dynamic to their advantage. Whereas their major label peers are essentially tied to the old system (and streams) of revenue, newer artists who are either fully independent, or have contracts with smaller indie labels which afford them more control, don’t need to sell 150,000 albums or fill an arena tour to make a profit. In fact, they will have an easier time of it, precisely because their “stage crew” many times may only consist of a friend from high school watching the merch table.

And this is where Wilson’s comment comes into play, and is exactly right; crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo provide a way for artists (both inside and outside the music sphere) to secure funding for that next tour without being on the hook for ~$400,000 in album distribution and tour expenses.

In fact, there are many artists now exploring the possibilities of free precisely as a way to use their music as a means of marketing to jack up the money they’re able to raise on sites like Kickstarter. By using their music as a “free sample” of their brand, artists are able to explore the dynamic of giving their prospective fans a reason to come out and see them live, buy a shirt, bring a friend—all things that are better for them than the money for one album sale anyway. Music is increasingly being used by these artists as major means of marketing and branding, rather than solely as an end commodity for sale.

You can’t argue with math, and here’s reality: How many times are you compelled to and/or do you buy a song or album? Just once. Why would you buy it again unless you had to? But if you examine the same dynamic with respect to going to a show, or buying a t-shirt, suddenly the answer is “as many times as you want.” It becomes a self-feeding cycle, wherein new possibilities are presented by the power of crowdfunding, and not having to go to a major label for the financing. It boils down to simple arithmetic.

The Album You Had to Buy Over and Over Again

It’s worth noting, also, that the established music industry got used to people buying the same album(s) over and over again because they had to. With each subsequent technological change, that Led Zeppelin album you loved so much became obsolete, and thus you needed to shell out more money for something you already had. Buying music on ’45’s became buying the same music again on LP’s, then again on cassettes, again on CD’s, and then again as basic mp3 files (usually off iTunes).

But something happened during that last transformation: music became distilled down to only the information, sans any physical product, and with the power and reach of the internet, distribution costs dropped to zero. Suddenly, the ability to reproduce and distribute music became the cost of 10 minutes of your time, and didn’t even require the kind of distribution networks that record labels had spent decades building, growing and protecting.

And who was it who lost out the most? The demographic that gleaned most of their revenue from physical album unit sales—the major record labels. But the artists now had a new reality in front of them: mass distribution, but without having to indenture themselves to the “physical CD sales-dynamic.” They were (and are) free to make money where they always have: in the live sphere with grass-roots ticket sales and merchandise sales. Thus it becomes clear that the statement “Live won’t save music” is inherently a biased lie. Live won’t save the old music industry, but those within the industry who are adapting to the new terrain are doing just fine exploring the new possibilities before them.

The New Free/Live Dynamic

Those are the people I would place my bets on. They have no stake in the old paradigm, and are happy to push it aside to see what the new free/live dynamic can do for them. This is where the real money in the music industry will be in the next decade. Not grasping with frail fingers at a business model quickly fading away, but exploring with wide-open eyes the opportunities that “free/live” afford both those in the music trenches, and their prospective fans. Don’t be fooled; there’s still a ton of money and opportunity in the music industry. You just need to know where to look.

Why Isn’t the Music Business Fully Crowdfunded?

Posted on March 24, 2015 by adammarx13

Last week, I posted an article detailing VC Fred Wilson’s thoughts on investing, in which I drew on a few things he’d stated during his interview with Jason Calacanis at LAUNCH. This time around I want to explore another statement Wilson made during his time on stage which I thought received way too little attention at the time. In fact, I’m quite shocked that more people haven’t really latched onto this sooner.

At one point during the conversation, Wilson mused, “I don’t understand why the music business isn’t fully on Kickstarter,” to which there was some murmuring (I heard sitting in the audience), but no real discussion thereafter of that particular comment. While I was just as interested in the next point that Wilson discussed with Calacanis (the subject of my previous post), I couldn’t (still can’t) get my arms around how something so stark to many people seems to fly under the radar. But before I get too incoherent, let me back up and explain my exasperation.

The wonderful thing about Kickstarter (or any of the other crowdfunding platforms) is the freedom that they give to artists. In the case of the music industry, the freedom I’m referring to is the ability to not have to sign to a major record label in order to have money to finance an album, tour, video, etc. Instead, artists can go directly to their own fanbases and raise the required capital from them, thereby side-stepping the very real consequence of having to sign away some amount of creative control (ever hear of master tapes?) to the major label. As a result of this, artists consequently side-step the dynamic of accruing a similar sort of debt with the label itself. (I will explain the deeper economics at play here in a later post).

The dynamic of crowdfunding has changed the entire paradigm of the music industry. Wilson’s comments struck me so much because of how true they really are. He doesn’t need to be a guitarist in a band to understand that the freedom that services like Kickstarter give content-producing artists is invaluable (clearly the reason he invested in Kickstarter in the first place). His own “I don’t understand why” comment exhibits his understanding of the services that used to be out of reach of artists, which are now readily available thanks to crowdfunding dynamics.

Of course, crowdfunding alone can’t and won’t control an entire vertical like, say, the music industry. It’s one part of a larger mechanism. But it’s nonetheless a shift in the paradigm of music production, distribution and consumption that was previously unavailable. Where crowdfunding really comes into play is when it totally disrupts the age-old adage “live won’t save music” (but that’s an argument for a later post).

Here’s the real point: Fred Wilson is an investor, not a guitarist or aspiring singer. Yet he sees the value of crowdfunding so much (investment interest aside) that he doesn’t understand why any artist would forgo the opportunities presented by these new services. And I’m inclined to agree with him (and I’ve been in the music industry now for years). So here’s the real question: if he gets it, and I get it, don’t you think that all the new artists out there get it too?

It just might be a very short time until the music business is fully (or mostly) crowdfunded.

Fred Wilson Believes in Things That Everyone Else Thinks Are Wrong (But Are Actually Right)

Posted on March 18, 2015 by adammarx13

A couple of weeks ago I attended the LAUNCH Festival in San Francisco, where I saw a number of amazing speakers over a three-day period. Needless to say the cross-country trip from Atlanta was worth it. However, despite the fact that there were numerous speakers whose points have stuck in my head since then (particular favorites of mine were Yancey Strickler (Kickstarter), Jeff Weiner (LinkedIn), Chris Sacca (VC) and Tony Hawk (yes I’m a huge fan of skating and the Brown Brigade)), the speaker whose comments were most easily accessible to me was Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures).

Since the wrap-up of the festival, Jason Calacanis has published a couple of posts and tweets noting the fact that his fireside chat with Wilson was one of the most popular interviews of the whole event. This I readily believe, as I sat with rapt attention as Wilson discussed a number of topics. Actually, Wilson made so many good points during his chat that I need to dissect it through a number of posts rather than in just one.

Of particular interest to me though was one thing that Wilson said. It clearly demonstrated to me his line of thinking when it came to identifying new companies that he liked to become (or was likely to become) involved in: “Believe in something that everyone thinks is wrong (but actually turns out to be right).”

That terse statement, which Wilson actually attributes as something Bill Gurley once wrote, underscored his thinking when it comes to herd-mentality and how he identifies opportunities. While I’m sure there are certainly other factors at play, the qualifier word “wrong” is an interesting choice for his (Gurley’s) adage; it implies quite clearly that he identifies opportunities not only in areas or with companies that might be viewed as rare or unconventional, but ones which may be entirely against the grain of “logical” thinking at the time. This by extension highlights the fact that one can expect Wilson’s current and future investments to be in areas or companies wherein others might not dare even entertain the notion of involvement. He benefits from the fear factor that clears the road in front of him to make it an open highway while others see the words “do not enter.” [1]

Though I’ve followed Wilson’s blog for some time now, since LAUNCH I’ve been reading his posts with this new thought in mind. With each new post I read, there’s now that nagging question in the back of my mind: “what’s the thing in this post that Wilson has identified that others think is flat-out wrong (but is actually right)?” There isn’t always a phrase with a blinking sign screaming “it’s me!” but the point remains that with each subsequent post comes a learning opportunity to go back and reexamine a possibility that I might have dismissed earlier as a “do not enter” sign.

I’m interested to see Wilson’s posts over the next month or so. I’m curious to see what piques his interest enough to blog about it that others may have already dismissed or avoided. I suspect that Wilson’s thought process might very well be as alternative as his Egon Schiele-esque Twitter profile pic (by the way Fred, kudos on that; art-history nerds like me rejoice in the fact that so many within the tech industry use so much modern art imagery). I believe that’s precisely how he’s able to identify opportunities that others miss, or dismiss altogether.

Thanks to Dad for reading drafts of this.

Notes

[1] Wilson also stated that he had been on the board of a non-profit called DonorsChoose for a few years, which, as he put it, “does exactly, exactly what Kickstarter does” for teachers and public schools. As a result of his involvement with this previous venture, which was raising between $30-40M at the time, Wilson notes that he had a bit of an inside look at the very sort of mechanism upon which Kickstarter was building.

Adam Marx's Mind

Playground for Creativity

Tag Archives: Fred Wilson