|
First, I think it's unwise to underestimate the value of good advice early on. Advice and it's best friend encouragement are often necessary ingredients. People do not function best in a vacuum. There is a reason why startups (and lots of things) happen in clusters. Second, there is a tendency to think for "meritocracy" as a very cold, dead thing. This kind of thinking is like applying an engineering mentality to human culture, society and personal interactions. The result is often a bureaucratic version of meritocracy, like a college application. These are not without their own biases, problems and everything else. They also strip nuance out of the process. This is a serious problem when you're looking for novelty, creativity, black swans, etc. In any case, imagine Andy Warhol in the 80s with his stable of artists, models, musicians and Warhol Superstars. He supported them in various ways. This paved their access to audiences, money, collaborators, publishers, patrons, etc. etc. Was Andy Warhol running a cronyism ring or was he a prominent figure in a community of artists? Was the Velvet Underground's success a product of cronyism? There's merit to the concept of cronyism in, for example, the government of a country. But, it's actually just a subcategory within a wider context of human interaction, important human interaction. I think your definitions of meritocracy and/or cronyism just aren't rich enough to capture what's going on here. If Leonard Cohen had a show where he introduced new artists he liked (personally and musically), I would pay attention. Leonard Cohen has whatever right to my attention as a listener that I choose to give him. Same for producers, collaborators, record labels, concert organizers and anyone else who values his opinion, or even his favor. Communities are complex. |