I picked up a book the other day, by Andrew Keen, called Cult of the Amateur. The book outlines the anti-democratization of internet-based information since the dawn of Web 2.0. Keen argues that without censorship, without gate keeping, the internet is enabling amateurs to gain fame and fortune at the expense of trained experts.As a result, mainstream media is faltering at the steps of online alternatives which are not always legitimate. Unedited, user-generated, and anonymous content, like Wikipedia, YouTube, and the Blogosphere leave web surfers in the face of a tidal wave of information, most of which is useless.
The interesting twist to this issue is that this amateur content is well received. Demand for more user-generated interfaces is growing and advertising is shifting from mainstream to online media, leaving a hazardous trail of defeated magazines, newspapers, musicians, and artists in its path.
The tip of my nose has worn a dent in the pages of this book.
I keep reading because I wonder why amateur content is so popular.
Why is Wikipedia already available in ten languages?
Why is the YouTube Pick of the Day, “DrumPants Redux?”
Why do you bother to read my blog?
I agree with Keen, internet content is depreciating in its artistic quality, its useful content, and its social value. But is this truly what the majority wants? Garbage?
I consider the movie JackAss.
I never was able to watch the whole thing. But a lot of people did. And they paid to see the sequel.
My speculation is that the problem begins among youth, particularly in instances where healthy social bonds are not formed and when there is limited exposure to fine arts. In today’s generation, kids are spending more time squinting in front of a computer screen, and less exploring offline hobbies and relationships. My fear is that they don’t know any better. (There’s a SSHRC proposal if anybody needs one).
Among adults, I wish keen had given the benefit of the doubt. There are, on one hand, the uninformed and naïve who are likely misguided, searching and surfing in all the wrong places, but there are certainly those of us who know that Wikipedia - while it may provide a quick answer to a mundane question - is not something to cite at the end of a report.
I haven’t quite finished the book, and from what I gather, the issue is left unresolved.
In a sense, I disagree with the author, and trust that we will always have edited news sources, that Pulitzer-quality books will be written, and that prodigious artists will be discovered amidst the overwhelming sea of wannabes. On the other hand, I suspect that the internet is changing these processes by enabling amateurs, like me, to gain presence and power.
An interesting read if anybody is looking for one.
