Labels

architecture Asheville atheism bard bbq books buddhism buffy burgers cars comics fashion film food japan kung fu Las Vegas manga memory music New Zealand other people's blogs photography podcast updates politics San Francisco Santa Cruz sex shoes shopping snow skiing taoism toys travel TV video web 2.0 women writing

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Book Review #3: The Cult of the Amateur

Hey, check it out. Somebody wrote a book about me. It's not very flattering, really. Apparently, I'm one of millions enthusiastically greasing the wheels for the demise of art, decency, and objective journalism. So what? I'm famous...or at least somehow relevant. That's all that matters, right?

Joking aside, I'm simply not sure where to begin. I have this gnawing feeling that Keen could have made his handful of credible arguments more effectively with a different approach. He's mixed too many topics and made too many contradictory arguments for this work to be taken seriously. He's also not saying anything terribly new. What surprises me most is that Keen believes that Web 2.0 is the appropriate context for a rather ambitious (but short) monologue on the problems of modern culture. In the 90s, this book would have been written about violence and video games. In the 80s, it might have been about ADD and MTV. In the 60s, drug use and rock and roll music.

I was reminded of this book, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, published 30 years ago. I pulled the dusty copy off the shelf to refresh my memory and was shocked to realize how very different these treatises are. Mander contends that television as a technology is inherently bad - like guns, in his opinion. (He appears to extend this argument to the Internet in this later speech made at the Technology & Globalization 2001 conference.)

Keen, on the other hand, bears no grudge against technology, itself, despite the fact that many passages read like arguments against the printing press. He appears to only have a problem with the way it is (ab)used. I'm not 100% clear about who Keen thinks is abusing the technology. Is it really the amateur blogger who writes about his opinions and personal experiences to share with his family and friends? Or is it the corporate or politically sponsored blogger disguised as an amateur who intentionally leads readers into misinformation? Perhaps it is the amateur de.licio.us user who shares posts by either of these bloggers without discrimination and becomes a cog in a giant marketing machine. Maybe The Cult of the Anonymous would have been a better title for Keen's book. Had he focused on some of the interesting contradictions that he, himself, uncovers about anonymity (and lack thereof) on the internet, his 200 wide-margined pages of double-spaced text could have been a little more thought-provoking. He touches on the topics of identity and accountability on the web, but his determination to demonize the amateur and exalt mainstream media distracts him from exploring these issues in more depth.

In Mander's world, the amateur isn't simply a card-carrying members of the unwashed masses. He is an individual with unique experiences and feelings. With this in mind, many of the arguments Jerry Mander makes against TV can be turned around to support arguments for a read/write web. Web 2.0 decentralizes information, carries the promise of true democracy, and provides an outlet for the expression of individual human experiences - unlike television. However, Mander would ultimately contend that both technologies - computer and television - separate individuals from nature, from real, sensory experiences of the world. So realistically, what of value would these users share with each other?

In my opinion, neither or these authors acknowledges the value of the active participant in media. Users actively seek what they want and share what they know. These activities exist at opposite ends of a continuum, not on either side of a wall. Nor are they equivalent. Keen seems to contend that those who don't know things are as prolific as those who do know things. These statistics don't prove expertise, but they do suggest that not all participants are actively inserting themselves into the content: On YouTube, only .16% of users upload videos. On Flickr, .2% of users upload photos. On wikipedia, 4.59% of users edit content. Not only that, but the 16-34 year olds on Wikipedia are the primary readers of content. The primary writers are 34-55+. [From the April 2007 Web 2.0 Expo HitWise keynote presentation]

I would also suggest that neither Mander nor Keen recognizes that the active participation in the media might also inspire users to reach out further than they might otherwise reach. Readers might be more likely to corroborate a story with various sources. Contributors might actively seek out interesting things to experience in the real world in order to have something of value to share. Users become more sophisticated. Contributors raise the bar for themselves and others. Experts emerge. Networks form. Communities develop. It's a utopian vision, but it's not flat. It's much more complex and diverse than Keen describes.

As far as amateur art is concerned, Mr. Keen, the idea that you'd wish upon me a steady diet of new Paul Simon records and Hollywood schlock rather than independent short films and music made by my very talented friends makes me ill. Equating journalism with art is just ridiculous, and I think you discredit yourself by not clearly distinguishing the two subjects. That's all I really have to say about that.

In regards to how the internet is poisoning our children with porn, gambling, and mindless online chatter, I have to wonder why people have children they don't want to raise. As a childless woman who can't quite justify bringing a new life into this world, I really don't try very hard to understand the challenges of modern parenthood. If Mom feels better about her 13 year old daughter staying home to enjoy goth porn in her room rather than having real sexual encounters with real people, so be it. Either way, communication clearly isn't happening between the proper parties. I don't think you can blame amateur pornographers for that.

In short, I think The Cult of the Amateur raises some interesting points, but doesn't actually bring them to logical conclusion. I appreciate Keen's suggestion that it is up to us, as the users, to recognize the dilemma and uphold the value of mainstream media, but I think he suggests a flawed approach. If the Web 2.0 community is undeniable, let it be unrelenting. Let the bloggers ask their questions. Let the mainstream media respond with dignity and credibility. Let artists make art because they love it, not because they're getting paid. Let users shame themselves in public and learn from their humiliation. And please let the most credible, the most talented, and the most intelligent find a way to keep the virtual ground from crumbling beneath our feet.

Labels: books, web 2.0