In the article entitled, “Remarks on Mediation and Production,” the authors Soren Andreasen and Lars Bang Larsen make their remark on the currently perceived role and suggested future role of middlemen. Note that these two authors are seasoned artists, writers, critics, and curators. Being middlemen, themselves, the two authors aim to defend the idea that middlemen play a more significant role in shaping the style of production – that middlemen help bring modernity and creativity in the style of production.
Outlining the said article, Andreasena nd Larsen first defined what they mean by the term, “middleman.” Accordingly, they have defined the term as the mediator between the style of production and the producer. They further explained that the middleman could by anyone. In other words, their definition of the term is broad and a little abstract at the same time. In a much simpler words, a middleman is a carrier of information, which information influences the style of production. They then started making points based from the remarks of other artists, producers, and curators. The first point that they made was that the power to shift from one type of production style to another or to create another type of production style, does not necessarily reside on the producers, but on the middlemen. In order to establish this point they have utilized the ideas of Michel Foucault about the utilization and representations of power from the perspective of “being networked,” and “networking.” Accordingly, it was argued that it is not the producer’s artistic creativity that determines the production style, but the mediated sign materials. The mediation of these sign materials is facilitated by the middlemen. They have then challenged the idea that producers are the ultimate authority on the style of production since they have the materials and the capacity to produce. In order to challenge this idea they have utilized their own experience in sound engineering; particularly, the production of echo. They made the analogy that an echo’s quality does not necessarily depend on the source but on the medium through which it permeates. The medium is the middleman. They have then supported their analogy through the case of Phil Spector. They explained that Spector is a middleman. After realizing that the current music producers of his time could not and would not produce the type of music that he liked, he goes to establish his own recording and music producing company, hence adding to the pool of different music types of genre.
Perhaps, one of the strengths of arguments presented in the article is that they are backed by theories, personal experiences from the author – who could be considered as authorities since they have been in the art industry for relative long period of time – and the remarks of other competent personalities. The use of Michel Foucault’s ideas on power and more recent minds like that of Ina Blooms and even interjecting some feminist ideologies, for example, is a manifestation that both old and new perspectives are considered in the writing of the essay and in establishing their aforementioned main points. Strength is the use of an actual case to be studied and become the basis for the article’s conclusion – the case of Phil Spector. Nevertheless, the article is not without a weakness. Its main weakness is the abstract definition of the term, “middleman,” to which all other arguments are based. Due to the abstraction of the term, it becomes very hard to understand why he producer is singled out among all other people involved in production, when in fact, the abstract definition could count the producer as another middleman. If this is the case, then it can be argued that the producer still holds the primal authority in determining the style of production – aside from the power he has due to the possession of the capacity to actually produce, he also has all the powers of the middleman. Some thought provoking questions are therefore created from such abstract definition and the main points presented in the article. One of such questions is: What limits the power of the middleman? Why did the authors imply that the producer is less powerful in determining the style of his production than the patchwork contribution of mediated sign materials added together by other middlemen? Are there other cases aside from that of Phil Spector which can be used as proof of the aforementioned main points or the case of Spector is more of an exception rather than the rule?
In conclusion, the entire article is well organized. It presented the main points in a logical manner and backed them with both theoretical and actual proofs. There is, however, a considerable vagueness in the definition of the term “middleman,” which puts all other arguments in jeopardy. There is also a need to prove that the case, which is the proof, presented in more of a rule rather an exception.
