To be an amateur in the U.S. is to be second rate. The reasoning goes that if one were a better writer, musician, or painter, a career in the arts would necessarily be in order. The professional is lauded – is taken seriously.
Things, however, weren’t always this way. Until the mid-to-late 19th century, amateurism (which literally translates: to do something purely out of love) held a higher cultural value than professionalism (or to do something with the expectation of financial compensation). It makes sense to me that if one is partaking in a spiritual endeavor like writing a song, money may only act to corrupt the process. Of course, the caveat that I am a bit of a Marxist should be set forth here.
The fact is, some of the most celebrated achievers and shapers of western culture were amateurs: Albert Einstein worked in a Swiss patent office when he wrote his theory of special relativity; Emily Dickinson, while she was alive, never published a single poem; Ben Franklin refused to patent his most famous and potentially lucrative invention: the lightning rod; and lest we forget, Jesus Christ had a day job – carpentry.
Not everyone, however, shares my opinion that unpaid labor is likely as good as – if not better than – paid. A recent book by old-school Internet capitalist, Andrew Keen, takes exception with the virtues of amateurism. As Keen sees it, amateurs aren’t only second rate, they also have the potential of destroying our culture. Their tool of destruction? The Web 2.0.
As pointed out in a NY Times review by Michiko Kakutani, Keen is concerned that by “undermining mainstream media and intellectual property rights…we will ‘live to see the bulk of our music coming from amateur garage bands, our movies and television from glorified YouTubes, and our news made up of hyperactive celebrity gossip.’”
Keen also suggests that the masses aren’t known for making wise decisions; as exemplars of this, he gives the Iraq War and the popularity of Britney Spears. Never mind that both of these trainwrecks were packaged and sold to the public by professional marketers.
Another of Keen’s concerns regarding our “worship of the amateur” is the creation of a world in which there are more authors, musicians, and artists – in short, more content creators – than content consumers. He imagines a scenario in which no one seeks out others’ words because we’ve all become so enamored with our own. I’m sorry; this is ridiculous to me. My experience, and the experience of every artist I know, is that we read more when writing, listen to music more when composing, and view more art when producing.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Keen is not an artist, nor (to my knowledge) has he ever belonged to an unsigned rock band or written a novel that goes unpublished. He is a business man – someone who’s profited tremendously from the Web of yesterday, a somewhat complicated network that one needed at least a cursory understanding of HTML and/or JAVA to break into. In short, it was a world that needed (de)coders.
Taking this into account, Keen’s alarmist cries regarding the Web 2.0 sound like those of the Papacy in response to Protestantism (which was viewed as radical in its concept that every man has an equal right in interpreting the word of God). According to Catholicism, the Bible needs an elite interpreter. Moreover, defenders of the Catholic Church as gatekeepers of God’s word claimed that without the Pope, religious mayhem would ensue. Therefore, commoners were dissuaded from learning to read or owning a Bible.
Of course, all of Rome’s kicking and screaming didn’t prevent more and more people from learning to read and more and more copies of the Bible from being published and disseminated. The result was the fracturing of Christianity, not its disappearance. Ultimately, one could argue that Jesus’ popularity benefited from the competition of divergent faiths (a free-marketer’s religious dream come true). And just as the major record labels and movie studios are suffering the brunt of our current fracture, so did the Catholic Church. I say good riddance on both accounts.
Moreover, as the Pope benefited from the suffering of His subjects, so did the major record labels and movie studios benefit from the suffering of struggling artists. How else to get them to bend over backwards and jump through endless hoops to please the master? Were you aware that lesser-known bands are expected to pay to play the Warped Tour? That is warped indeed. In no other world would this be acceptable. Could you imagine a welder paying to build a ship or a lawyer paying to represent a client?
If you sense a tone of bitterness in my writing, you’re an astute reader. I was one of the poor schleps who spent years at the feet of the major record industry just to get a small scrap. I was a member of a band that was the annual “next big thing” – and still, we got nothing. I am not saying here that I deserved the overblown teenage fantasy life I was aiming for, merely that artistically, I think we would have been better off without the constant buzzing in our ears form record industry types who wanted us to develop in this way or that.
Moreover, it is not my intention to disparage any artist – musical or otherwise – who gets paid for their labor. I deeply respect anyone who goes through all one needs to in order to live the dream – you are my brothers and sisters, not my enemies.
To illustrate the (until recent) all-powerful monolith of the major record industry, I give you Steve Albini’s sage words from his essay, “The Problem with Music”:
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people … at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed.
Nobody can see what’s printed on the contract. It’s too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody’s eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there’s only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says “Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke.” And he does of course.
Albini’s words may seem severe, but I have known dozens of bands that suffered this metaphorical fate. We all naively thought that signing with a major label would be our ticket, and for all but one band, it was nothing but an endless case of artistic agita. Release dates were always pushed back, tour support was always spotty, A and R representatives (a band’s liaison with the label) were always coming and going. In short, the dream was consistently a nightmare. Moreover, the odds of a signed band even releasing a second album are twenty to one (this statistic was true in the ‘90s; it may be different now).
As for major record labels, publishing houses, art galleries, and movie studios being the arbiters or gatekeepers of quality art, this is another absurd claim made by Keen. Has he not seen some of the crap rolled out by these major purveyors of quality?
Just as the popularity of Jesus benefited from the fracturing of Christianity, one could argue that Hollywood (and the public) has benefited from pressures placed upon it by independent filmmakers. Certainly, the major record labels have benefited from the indies such as Sub Pop, SST, 4-AD, and Barsuk, taking chances on and nurturing some of the most acclaimed and popular bands of the last twenty years – think of Nirvana, REM, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, and Death Cab for Cutie.
As for the Web 2.0 creating an environment analogous to an artistic wild west, survival of the fittest is likely healthier for the arts than the corporate shopkeeper placing his hand on the scale (isn’t this how we wound up with The New Kids?). At least now, the playing field is a bit more level, and every musician, writer, and filmmaker has a real chance to take destiny into their own hands – not to mention the tools to self-produce albums, films, and books.
Yes, Mr. Keen you are right on one account: there is a lot of crapola floating around in cyberspace, but my guess is that you never spent much time at your local rock club or coffee house. Believe me, there have always been crappy bands, poets and painters; maybe you’re just shocked by being exposed for the first time. But at least you didn’t have to pay five bucks to see a band like Free Drinxxx or Scream Parade; your exposure came complimentary with your ISP plan and your escape from sensory insult was merely a click away.
As for our culture being destroyed by online amateurs: if Elvis’ pelvis, Pollock’s splatters, or Ginsburg’s free verse didn’t destroy western civilization (as they were expected to), I doubt that William Hung (who has the Fox Network to thank for his fame), Lonelygirl15, or Metallica Drummer will.
Perhaps, Mr. Keen, you just miss the days when Michael Bolton ruled the airwaves. Those were truly the great days of corporate rock (which still sucks).
so scott — how then do you theorize the relationship between the web amd cultural production in the late-20th/early-21st centuries? is there some middle point theory, which would recognize the numbing (and dumbing) effect of corporate capitalism on art, on the one hand, and the opportunities the web has afforded for vibrant, independent, serious art? is the rest of what’s on line — conspiracy theories, bad home movies, porn, poorly written rants and raves, popups, networking sites filled with images of drunken frat boys — something we have to live with in order to arrive at what’s actually valuable? i totally agree with your criticism of keen’s snobbishness (and insularity), but do you have to be a snob to suggest that most of what’s on the web is total crap? (i wish a few of my students would realize this before they chose to plagiarize from bad termpaper websites.)
did anyone read the NYT magazine article about the music business and columbia records’ recent (re)hiring of rick rubin?
i fell asleep before finishing it last night but it obliquely relates to scott’s post today, which incidentally, sucked my nut.
hey it’s not letting me link it.
third try:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02rubin.t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin
Wait a minute. Is “sucked my nut” good or bad? Could go either way. If good, then Scott, your post sucked my nut too.
And just so this doesn’t end up as one of those “mere validation” comments, I’ll add a link to Kristin Hersh’s thoughts on the music business over at Throwingmusic.com. Hersh has tried it all in terms of distribution, from major label deal to subscription service to free online posting of whole records. Now she’s likening her craft to an organic farmer’s–i.e., community-supported (agri)culture:
“This little business will be interactive and intelligent; you will not be lied to, no shiny poison, no middle man.”
I think it’s fine to say the vast majority of stuff on the Web is crap — and to say otherwise is to ignore reality. I suppose it’s even possible that the ratio of good stuff to crap on the Web is lower than that ratio in commercial culture, although in both cases it’s a very, very small ratio. What the Web has going for it is vibrancy and accessibility, a completely different and looser set of rules. So sometimes good stuff happens that wouldn’t have happened without the current digital tools of creation and dissemination.
And I’m certain the military/industrial/entertainment complex will continue to find ways to make money off of new artists in a way that results in the occasional widened exposure for really good stuff. Keen’s concerns sound ridiculous.
being that i don’t have nuts, i can’t say for sure, but i cannot imagine that having one’s nuts sucked would ever be a bad thing.
rachel (and other TGW women) want to help me come up with some female equivalents of sucking the nut (ks, a reader who recently revealed herself in the comments of dave’s post yesterday, asked this excellent question last night).
(#35 in comments 9/4) sorry my linking ability is not strong today.
A general comment about the piece on Rubin — it highlights some of the problems faced by the music business, big labels in particular. They’re definitely having a hard time. But most musicians aren’t having a harder time, I think — it’s hard to be a working musician, always, and you always have to scramble. And I also don’t think music itself is suffering. There’s a lot of really good stuff out there, even though it floats in a sea of utter shit. So I don’t mourn the big record companies at all, although Rubin seems like a decent guy and I suppose one should wish him well.
…how then do you theorize the relationship between the web amd cultural production in the late-20th/early-21st centuries? is there some middle point theory, which would recognize the numbing (and dumbing) effect of corporate capitalism on art, on the one hand, and the opportunities the web has afforded for vibrant, independent, serious art?
Is the rest of what’s on line — conspiracy theories, bad home movies, porn, poorly written rants and raves, popups, networking sites filled with images of drunken frat boys — something we have to live with in order to arrive at what’s actually valuable?
The Web has become something that other media have failed to become (or at least not to the same extent): a fairly good reflection of our culture (this said with the caveat that all cultural reflections do also inform the culture). I think this answers the first part of your question. If not please clarify.
As for the second part: yes, the Web has given a greater voice to things like conspiracy theories, but the guy that claims Stephen King assassinated John Lennon was lurking around the Height way back in the ’80s; yes, porn is more accessible, but Playboy won a case back in the ‘50s allowing its home delivery; yes, poorly written rants and raves are easier to find, but I poorly rant and rave every day to my partner; yes, popups are a neucence, but try using a urinal in most any bar, and you’ll be treated to an ad posted on the wall in front of you; and as for drunken frat boys – we elected one to the presidency. (Steph I’ll save you the comment – I know we didn’t.)
It seems that the biggest concern in regards to the Web, which people have, is the amount of crap available. The only time I see this as a real problem is when offensive material slips through to unsuspecting users (think of your grandma typing “jugs” into a Google images search window). But isn’t this also a problem with society in general? Haven’t you ever been sitting in a restaurant with your kids, nieces, parents or grandparents and overheard some loudmouth (hopefully not me) at the next table telling some racy joke? If anything, I find that avoiding “offensive” material is a little easier online than in the corporal world.
That said, flashing popups do make me insane, and Trixie, your comments bite my butt (I went with a unisex body part).
Lurkers: was this the kind of online crap you were hoping to avoid?
Another interesting thing about the Web and technology in general is how it’s blurred the line between the amateur and the professional–it’s really easy nowadays for a 13-year-old kid to construct a very professional-looking website or, ahem, a group of friends to create a pro-looking blog. And due to this increasing democratization of the web, it’s easier for all of us to contribute to this grab-bag of content that is forever multiplying… I like the timeliness of this post, since it hints at the conversation that began yesterday about TGW. Do we want to stay amateurs or be courted by the major labels?
Has anybody else ever used the “Next Blog” feature on Blogspot blogs? It takes you randomly to another blog, generally one that has had activity in the last day. It’s simultaneously fascinating and boring. You find out that quiet desperation is everywhere, not just in *your* life.
There are rants about illegal immigration (http://thomservations.blogspot.com/), adolescent confusion (http://sixsixnine.blogspot.com/ and http://omohyoidmaximus.blogspot.com/), in many languages (http://guscor.blogspot.com/), confusing advocacy for certain credit cards (http://ca-canadaiywylhttaw.blogspot.com/), information about technology and business (http://lasermarkingmaterials.blogspot.com/), etc., etc. Often, something completely indecipherable to me like this comes up (http://ricecoffee.blogspot.com/). I’m not entirely sure why, but this one is my favorite I’ve found this way. There’s something very meditative about hundreds of nearly identical photos of slate roof tiles.
I’m really not sure what all this indicates about the web, outside of the fact that a *lot* of people the whole world over have decided to publish their own writing and images using this cheap technology.
As Scotty points out, though, practically since movable type was invented there have been jeremiads like Andrew Keen’s about new media that provide cheap ways to circulate information. I’m feeling self-indulgent, so here’s one I quoted in my dissertation:
“Literature is more like a blasted fig-tree than a healthy blooming English oak. Criticism flourishes on the grave of imagination. Encyclopaedias, discursions, cheap manuals for the uninstructed, infantile manuals for lazy adults, take the place of living books. No sooner does one editor issue a series of ancient classics for English readers, than another editor cuts in with a series of manuals to our own classics, which are accessible to everybody in mother-English. The era of completed literary sinfulness is reached when people discuss seriously an article in the Quarterly Review, get up the “Pilgrim’s Progress” out of a manual, and need cicerones to expound to them the beauties of our popular poets. Fiction flourishes like a noxious growth. Meantime, where are we, and whither are we drifting? After the School Board has come the Deluge.” —Robert Buchanan, A Look Round Literature, 1887
The School Board to which he refers here was the governmental body set up in the UK to disseminate compulsory education to everyone up to the age of 16 or so free of charge, which vastly increased literacy rates and helped open up a market for the cheap kinds of printed materials that had rapidly developed in the last half of the 19th century. If you take Buchanan’s word for it, Literature was nearly dead from drowning in a sea of undistinguished and indistinguishable books and pamphlets.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Trixie, your comments bite my butt (I went with a unisex body part).
Scotty: That’s much better than the sick, pervy, and shameful places my brain was going in its search for a female equivalent of “suck my nut”. In a nod toward Farrell and his request for more tolerance of critical comments, I will argue that it lacks the wonderful ambituity factor of the original–“does it suck your nut in a good way?”–but it’s better than nothing.
Somewhat relevant to the above post (and something that bites my butt) is the fact that I have had to adjust the way I teach (history) in light of students’ dependence on the web for the gathering of all information. No one reads books because they can find countless reviews within seconds. Plagiarism is out of control, though to be fair the web has made it much easier to verify. Is there perhaps a parallel to be made here between your suggestion that art and talent are being diluted, even buried, amid amateurish rubbish and college students? That is, Is the web contributing to the amateurization of students? I have largely quit giving research papers as assignments because they are either conglomerations of the work of others, culled from assorted web sources, or they are “supported” by strange and unfamiliar (to me) sources. I have to write the most obscure essay questions to ensure that no one else has ever asked the question in quite the same way to force students to write their own dang papers. It’s tapping out my creative juices, and I’m a historian because creativity was never my strong suit…something else that bites/sucks. I’ll stop before I get any further off track or beat the dead horse again.
Jeremy, I agree with your comment. well stated.
during the renaissance, a whole bunch of folks were rethinking (mostly oratory) language and style. the more fancy or unique you could make the metaphor, the more you’d be in the royalty’s good graces– pretty much like the blogosphere, youtube, and itunes. i sometimes think of the web as a giant public square where everyone’s trying to out-style everyone else, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing– but does mean there’s a lot of shit to sort through.
it’s the webaissance! we’re forced to rethink rhetorics, art and identity, no? otherwise, why would one put up a blog that exhibits roof tiles as art?
KS: I am not suggesting that amateurs on the Web are diluting art and talent, but the point you make about students having access to largely untraceable papers is a good one.
I have watched my partner spend hours trying to track down the sources of papers she is sure are plagiarized, only to never find a single trace. Of course turning in untraceable, plagiarized work has existed for a long time on college campuses (at least for those who could afford to pay for someone else to write their paper).
I can certainly imagine a time in the not too distant future when policymakers decide that it is a waste of taxpayer money to teach undergraduates in public universities the proper way to write a research paper. The argument may go that with all the information available on the Web, why should we be wasting time on such an antiquated concept?
Perhaps writing classes will be supplanted by classes on creating ideal Second Life characters.
sincerest apologies, Scotty, for my gross misunderstanding of your point, which on a second read is very clear. I initially thought Keen’s points, which you were outlining before challenging, reflected your position. My bad.
Now you have me wondering what Marx would think about the internet, were he to rise from the dead and take a look at our day and age. Microsoft, Google, etc.: evidence of capitalism run completely amok? Would his personal website’s address be wwwebsploitation.com(munism)? Where will the revolution begin and what would it success look like in this age of dot.coms, wealth accumulation seemingly devoid of human labor power behind it?
Scott, insert banned accolades and compliments here.
There is no doubt that technology and the ‘Read/Write’ web has changed the game completely when it comes to many aspects of our culture. Technology is a highly disruptive force, always has been and always will be, which is what Keen is ultimately moaning and groaning about. Most of his complaints are pretty vapid. But, I’ll give him this: This Keens is no amateur asshole. No siree. This is a professional asshole right here.
He does know how to make use of the Web 2.0 tools that he spends so much time lambasting (for profit, no less). He’s got a blog which he uses to criticize people who, among other things, blog. And on that blog he advertises and sells his books and public appearances (including video clips that could just as easily be hosted on youtube). So I guess he’s not just a professional bunghole, but also a professional hypocrite.
All of that aside, I think it’s an open question of whether all the exciting changes in technology over the last four years will have a positive or negative net effect on our culture. That’s a big question and it’s too early to really measure it (and how would one?). But I’m a technologist, so I do have an opinion on the matter. I think the effect will be overwhelmingly positive, although there will surely be casualties along the way. On Keen’s blog, he writes
“If gloom is Keenian, then what adjective should be shoved behind the word “optimism”. Given that the focus of Rachman’s piece is his affection for Jimmy Wales’ loathsomely optimistic Wikipedia, I suggest that Walesian should be the antonym of Keenian. Does that make your laugh or cry? Are you Keenian or Walesian?”
I’d have to say if I had to pick sides, I’d go with Jimmy on this one…
KS – If Marx were alive! I think he would take a look at the world and crawl back into his grave in High Gate cemetery and call it a day. Seriously though, I’m probably entirely alone here, but I think the conditions that needed to be met for Marx’s notion of communism to come into fruition have yet to arrive. Marx’s communism wasn’t the defeat of capitalism, it was the next step forward.
KS: Marx got a lot of things wrong; one needs to remember that (though in the Manifesto, he set the historical stage for the oncoming revolution) he was commenting on a specific time regarding a specific condition (the plight of the proletariat in 19th century Europe).
He didn’t foresee the ways in which “democratizing” technologies were to shape society. Also, and more importantly, he didn’t foresee the adaptability of twentieth and twenty-first century capitalism — the ways in which it co-opts and sells our visions back to us.
For this type of critique one needs to read Marcuse who discussed the ways in which we define ourselves through our possessions, how capitalists understand this, and use it to their advantage.
Recently Facebook announced information on member profiles would be used to tailor advertisements. For example, if one professes a liking of Chinese food, the user would likely receive ads from Panda Express.
The real danger with the Web is that we are all so free with the information that corporations can use to shape our opinions. (Excuse my vulgar metaphor, but) we are spreading our legs wide open.
Open to ball sucking, I suppose.
I must also say, Scott, that I loved the pure cynicism of that Steve Albini quote.
Albini did a Q&A at a poker bulletin board a while ago that’s pretty interesting.
I posted a comment that never went through, so appoligies if this is a double.
I remember when I first read the Albini article. It was published in Maximum Rock ‘N’ Roll around ’93 or ’94. One of my bandmates gave me a folded, photocopy version and told me that I must read it.
Within weeks, it seemed that every musician I ran into was talking about it. It was as if we were all exposed for the first time to the possibility that getting a record deal wasn’t all that it’s cracked up to be — like we were all collectively waken from the dream.
You should read the whole article. Here’s a link.
I’m a graphic designer, what used to be called a commercial artist. Creating artwork for other people I have to figure out what they want regardless of what I like. This often involves regurgitating someone else’s vision or style. Most of the products coming out of corporate America, whether it be design, music, etc, are far from visionary because the artists have so little power and are forced to cater to what the suits think the public wants. In short, the web rocks and I completely agree with you Scotty. It’s easier than ever to sift through the crap out there and find inspirational art. In addition, people are sharing how to do things and spreading information, not unlike the days of the Protestant Reformation.
In regards to 7., I’m just throwing out an idea:
That wiggles/jiggles my clittie.
nice, kate.
me likey.