Deep Jive Interests

thank you..

by Chat on June 8, 2007 at 3:34 pm. #

I’m not reading anything in Andrew Keen worth the froth building around his point of view. Some of what he says makes a great deal of sense – some not so much. Frankly, some user generated content is drivel. It is not THE culture any more than corn flakes or oatmeal is THE breakfast. I think DJI states precisely why he continues developing and evolving his ideas – to make a buck. I’d as soon pay him as his critics. Just my opinion.

BTW, thank you for the link to the interview. I’d never thought too much about what Keen says in response to some great questions. I’m guessing Toronto Globe and Mail is quite thrilled at the buzz of the interview.

by Bob Glaza on June 9, 2007 at 3:07 pm. #

Keen most certainly is flame-bait, the article is right. If Keen thinks freedom inhibits culture, he obviously has not seen musical group OK Go’s home-made music video, which through immense popularity on YouTube landed them a record deal. If that isn’t culture, I’m not sure what is. In this 21st century world, culture is in the power of the individual as well as the professional musicians, artists, etc. Last time I checked, blockbuster movies at my local theater were created by professionals. Despite what Keen would like to have you believe, culture does exist in the amateur forms of media, his TRUE beef though, is that money isn’t going into his pocket when people do watch/create/publish free media.

by Chris on August 17, 2007 at 2:49 am. #

News Flash: Andrew Keen Hates People Using the Internet
He Wants it for the Elite Only

Currently, the internet is the last free outlet for anyone to be able to be heard who is not already in a position of power (such as is held by an established journalist, filmmaker or so forth). Other, traditional outlets are already sealed off by institutional gatekeepers, preventing new talent from entering whenever possible, and this is the main reason for the decline in the state of culture in general. Newspaper articles are increasingly biased and unrepresentative, many movies are poorly made with arty pretensions (and so on), as real talent is being largely blocked by the gatekeepers. And Andrew Keen wants to put up more gatekeepers to block new talent from being heard on the internet!

Andrew Keen’s book The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy espouses over-regulation of the internet to prevent “amateurs” (ie ordinary people) on sites like YouTube, internet blogs, etc. from destroying culture, society, and anything else he can think of. He wants the institutionalisation of a system of “gatekeepers”, who would be arbiters of the internet and prevent amateurs (ie anyone who is not of the professional elite that Keen aspires to) from access to it. This, he proclaims, will prevent this mythical destruction of everything from occurring.

With the current, unregulated internet, Sue Cato, spin doctor and principal of Cato Counsel, says that “somebody who’s never had a voice before suddenly has one, and it’s an equal voice.”

This is democracy at work on the internet.

Writer/blogger Anthony Lowenstein adds: “A lot of people feel empowered and clearly the internet has challenged the arrogance of many mainstream journalists who think that when they speak people should automatically listen. There’s no question it’s been democratised – the question is whether the positives outweigh the negatives [and] they definitely do.”
Running his own website, open for comments from the same “rank amateurs” that Keen rages against, Lowenstein says of his contributors, “they’re not [uninformed hillbillies]. There’s a lot of quality stuff out there.”

“[Keen] compares bloggers to a million monkeys at a million typewriters,” summarises a review of his book. Keen is in complete opposition, then, to the whole fabric of western culture, which has always espoused the value of the amateur artesian – the “renaissance man” (person) who could paint, draw, dance, etc. with some proficiency, while not being considered an expert at it. From this “talent pool” of talented amateurs then come the masters of their crafts. Keen would rather those already “in” stay in, and those outside of the already-successful stay permanently out – and unheard. Most of those now considered the great writers, composers, painters, etc., began far outside of the circle of the successful elite. Keen would presumably like to exclude these people – killing the very culture he claims he is trying to protect.

Keen would, of course, argue that his mythical editors/gatekeepers would distinguish talent from “amateurs” with unerring accuracy. Interestingly, the “gatekeepers” of the entire art world, particularly in painting, have proved throughout history to be the biggest obstacles to every new development. Their conservatism and general stodginess hampered development at every turn.

For example, the Impressionist painters (now considered ground-breaking) were kept out by the institutional “gatekeepers” of the art world, those experts and professional elite who Keen wants to ingratiate himself with by his protection of their exclusive positions. The Impressionists eventually had to hold their own exhibitions, outside the usual distribution channels, in order to show their work at all.

In all fields, seldom did the “gatekeepers” spot new talent and admit it; always they guarded the gates most tightly against the artists with the talent. These artists had to waste many years of their lives battling the gatekeepers rather than producing art. Keen’s gatekeepers would be no different, blocking talent at every turn.
In fact, the world has become more closed to new talent, primarily in terms of channels of distribution. If you write a novel, and the publishers won’t print it (as has happened to many authors now considered greats – even in the last few years), what do you do with it? Even if you can afford to print it yourself, how do you distribute it? The bookshops will seldom stock these books, and direct advertisements are expensive and generally ineffective. The internet provides the ideal way to distribute the book – whether as a glorified “mail order catalogue” for people to hear about it and order a copy, or as a complete book available online. And since it can be provided almost free online (subject to the minimal cost of maintaining a website), it can be offered for free, getting your work out to the widest possible audience. Keen wants to block this channel from all but the elite, those who already are “in” with the publishers, distributors, etc. and have no pressing need for the services of the internet.

Keen claims that newspapers, record companies, movie studios, publishers, etc. are on the verge of extinction due to the “amateurs” being allowed the freedom to show their work online. The general argument – that a new technology is destroying culture/society/other-please specify – is not new. In the 1980s, when video recorders were new, it was thought that the new “audio visual media” would replace the teachers, making them obsolete overnight, to the panic of teachers, who held meetings against it. (The VCR is in turn being replaced by the DVD, and I still don’t see VCRs fronting classrooms.) The same was thought (at around the same time) about computers, when they were new. Computers now have developed to extents that noone would ever have imagined or hypothesised back in those days, and none of the gloomy prophesies have come true. Likewise, when radio was first introduced in the early 1900s, there were complaints that the new, wildly popular “wireless” was destroying culture, civilised society, etc. Similar arguments were made about the printing press when it was first invented. Keen’s gloomy prophesies and absolute conjecture are following the pattern of those (now forgotten) who projected doom for culture, society and everything else they could think of, at the advent of each new technological advance.

Keen rages against copyright theft. He would probably argue that online piracy of movies/music/books is causing their current decline in their sales, and will inevitably result in the ruin of the companies that sell them. The argument is not new either. When people bored of disco music and sales fell, record companies blamed the new “cassette recorders” (whereby people would copy the music illegally) for this decline. Only very quietly did they later admit the real reason.
Also notice that while music sales fell at the end of the disco era, they recovered sufficiently afterwards for it to be “business as usual” (once the record companies had caught up with public taste again) for more than a decade, before the current temporary fall in sales and rise of gloomy predictions.

To continue the case of the music industry, it is interesting to note that many new artists are now gaining popularity online, some then progressing to a record contract. The internet is an ideal way for them to be heard by the general public before this elusive contract arrives. Cutting the internet off to them, as they are not “professionals”, would stymie new talent – which is what Keen really wants.

Keen cleverly sidesteps responsibility for the gaping holes in his arguments and their inherent lack of logic, flippantly stating that his book is a “polemic, primarily designed to start the conversation”.

Keen states that “noone pays for content any more” and that movies, books, etc. will resultantly become a “publicity tool, another form of promotional giveaway”. The logic of this accusation is unclear, and probably nonexistent. It seems to stem from Keen’s mistaken idea that the periodical fad for companies to commission short-films-as-advertisements will replace the Hollywood blockbuster, the arty independent film, the foreign film or anything else. There are movies made by professionals and experts that are little more than advertisement for toy ranges and car brands; this isn’t the fault of the internet, enthusiastic amateurs, or anything else. In fact, these amateurs can often do better than the professionals – take the internet’s “Phantom Edit” of Star Wars – The Phantom Menace. It tightened the film by cutting away many of the annoying Jar-Jar Binks tripping-over-and-having-accidents scenes. Remember that these unnecessary scenes were scripted and filmed by professionals and experts, and none of them or their gatekeepers saw the sequences for what they were. So much for amateurs dragging culture down.

Aslan Ritchie, Australia

by Aslan Ritchie on August 23, 2007 at 9:34 pm. #