"Everybody has won, and all must have prizes" said the Dodo, in Lewis Carroll's Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Or so it seems. For those disappointed by their Christmas presents, one alternative is a fascinating new book by Jim English, who looks at what he calls The Economy of Prestige. This is what Publishers Weekly had to say:
Examining film and literary prizes' geneses, history and the hoopla that accompanies them, English parses the many ways awards and award ceremonies have become an institutionalized "game" that relies on the condescension and outrage they provoke among critics and contenders alike. He confines his study primarily to writing and film awards, but these provide more than enough fodder for him to produce a remarkably clear anatomy of the way prizes shape their respective worlds; he sagely notes the approximately 4,500 feature films released annually compete for about 9,000 prizes, and while the number of books published every year still outpace number of awards, literary awards have multiplied exponentially since WWII.
Some passages are dense with philosophical references and theoretical jargon, but English tempers them with case studies and pop culture examples, including a lively dissection of the perennially maligned Booker Prize, that make his discussion more accessible. Despite the book's narrow scope-it focuses almost solely on judges and the judged, neglecting the effect on consumers-the book brings a refreshing perspective to a conversation usually dominated by reflexive positions.
You can download and read the Introduction here (PDF). See also Louis Menand's discussion of the Nobel prize for literature, All that glitters: literature's global economy, in the New Yorker.
UPDATE: Mark Thoma of Economist's Views has also linked to the New Yorker piece. He writes:
As a Martian, I see the decline in the value of awards from a different perspective. I think art is difficult to value, there is an information problem, and in such cases it pays to consult experts who can vouch for characteristics such as the artist, etc. that help to determine value. It's not as certain as, say, having gold assayed, but experts serve the same purpose. The proliferation of awards can be viewed as arising from the market failure due to imperfect information on quality.
By creating false signals of quality - prizes and awards - there are gains to individuals in the short-run, but in the long-run this behavior across individuals undermines the value of the signal. However pure the motivations of suppliers in the artistic process are, and however demand is generated, once the good gets to market we have a pretty good idea about how the price will be set.
Comments