the cult of the amateur

[nomad]

Just started this book. Has anyone else read it (by andrew keen)? His argument is that the glut of amateur-generated content, mostly online, is putting traditional content, and therefore the continual production of high-quality culture, at risk.

I found his arguments to be cogent, interesting, and very, very wrong. Was just curious to hear what other people think about this.

[themuzicman]

Ultimately, the new high quality talent comes from the amateur world when those who have the talent and ambition emerge. The internet just provides a forum for all amateurs to try, which ultimately will discover more with a particular talent, which means more with ambition (and talent) will come out of the woodwork.

So, the"high quality" "traditional content" guys are threatened because their fraternity of high quality folks will grow, and supply and demand will lower their rewards, but that's about it

Michael

[Jnthn]

It sounds more like the myth of the professional. "Amateur" and "Professional" does not carry with it any promise of quality, just whether the individual receives payment or not for the services.

I'm inclined to think that the author is trying to save a dying medium.

J

[Seasanctuary]

Abstract: Seasanctuary provides a cogent analysis of amateur vs. professional content generation in the context of popular culture and Internet consumption.

Sign In
Purchase Short-Term Access
Sign Up

[Sparko]

Abstract: Seasanctuary provides a cogent analysis of amateur vs. professional content generation in the context of popular culture and Internet consumption.

Sign In
Purchase Short-Term Access
Sign Up

I'm IN! I would rather pay a professional for their opinion than read these amateurs!

here you go:

:treasure:

I hope that 's enough

[Gideon Brown]

Just started this book. Has anyone else read it (by andrew keen)? His argument is that the glut of amateur-generated content, mostly online, is putting traditional content, and therefore the continual production of high-quality culture, at risk.

I found his arguments to be cogent, interesting, and very, very wrong. Was just curious to hear what other people think about this.

Can you give us some examples of the arguments?

[nomad]

Some of does come across at lame attempts to save a dying medium. One complaint, for example, talks about some company that sponsored a competition for amateur video ads for its product, that it then paid $10k each for (5 total, about $50k). The previous year, it had spent $385k on ads. He then goes on to make the completely dubious claim that, because of these amateurs, the other $335k disappeared from the economy? Maybe from HIS economy, but in the real economy, it got spent on something else with more value to that company.

Hidden inside the absurdities though are a few interesting points. He brings up the case of journalism. It's true that nowadays I hardly pick up the paper; news comes to me in many forms, often over the internet, say, Google News. Even here in the civics section, I can keep up with the news that people here find interesting. The only problem, of course, is that most of those articles point to real newspapers and/or radio stations, with stories gathered by real journalists who are getting paid to do so. I realize this is in the end a self-defeating model. If all the real newspapers shut down, will amateur journalism be enough to fill the void when they can't just sort stories from other people?

Music is less of an issue. Whatever you think about the quality of music, composition-wise (is rap music? death metal? daft punk?). the absolute truth is that the cost of producting music and video has dropped dramatically since even 20 years ago. When I was in high school and college, production on the cheap meant a 4-track cassette recorder. Now it means a perfect digital recording on a PC of my horrible song :)

But I don't dispute that the democracy of modern rock music has certainly made other types of music no longer profitable. There aren't as many people who flock to the symphony like there used to be, and the marginal cost of music caused by the leveling of the amateur effects makes a symphony incredibly expensive in comparison. If nobody cares, then the people who do value it will have to pay more for it, or it might not be available at all.

On the other hand, a composer can now put a whole symphony on their hard drive for less than $300, and with proper use sound like a real symphony too (*)... so even the marginal classical composer with not much scratch has a chance of seeing his magical vision coming to light (or audio at least). Did J.S. Bach's baker have that kind of possibility before them?

I think the world is changing. I'm not surprised most people here would disagree with him as well :)

[nomad]

Can you give us some examples of the arguments?

I've read about the first 3 chapters so far.

One is about journalism. The primary argument there is that journalism is a public good. This public good is promoted when journalists have a lot of experience; he points at someone like Thomas Friedman, who's been a middle eastern reporter for a very long time, and who theoretically knows it well and can pass on this knowledge. (I've read his books, I think he certainly does tell some interesting stories). This kind of experience takes dedication that requires a career, and requires to get paid for it. The availabilty of free, but lesser-quality content, imperils this being possible, so that intelligent viewpoints may not even be available - Democratization aside, how many people have the personal fortune to hang out in the middle east on their own dime and report back? Blogs reportedly make not much more than beer money, so we aren't replacing one commercial model with another.

Another point is that real journalists often take on the government and big corporations, something that bloggers etc. are unable or unwilling to due, without the financial backing of a powerful media interest behind them. Journalists sometimes go to jail for not releasing their sources. Bloggers talk about the latest improvements to the Prius (his example). But I remember a very interesting blog by a reporter who embedded himself in Iraq, who wasn't on the payroll of any media outlet, and (i think) was hoping to turn it into a book (the blog raised his awareness, I guess). Maybe that model will work.

The music ones are similar. The arguments in general (so far) are along the lines of: Current high-quality content (professional journalism, symphony orchestra, network TV, pop music, etc) requires a large outlay of capital to make. The rise of amateur media, which in general is not as good as these, and in some ways parasitic to these older forms, is directly attacking the commercial models which enabled those capital outlays to be possible. Amateur media, even the better ones, has not created any newer commercial models by which these same capital outlays can be made. Therefore, content in the future is doomed to be lower quality.

I think that's the general idea at least. I think especially the last line is up for a lot of debate. And some forms of media clearly will be more difficult - a symphony orchestra, for instance, is expensive - the instruments themselves are expensive, the labor cost is high, etc. And the marginal cost of music is dropping, making it very expensive compared to, say, listening to the radio, or indie music. OTOH, anyone with $229 and a PC can get a fairly high-quality orchestra inside their computer, and some decent orchestral works have been done that way (or at least prototyped that way), which means that not only JS Bach can make orchestral music, but so can his baker.