Booksquare

The thing that has amazed me the most these past months is the onslaught of publicity given to Andrew Keen. Keen, for those who haven’t had the pleasure, has written a book. Following the traditional author trajectory, he has embarked upon a round of appearances and media carnivals. Given that the circus has been in town for more than a month, it’s safe for you to assume that Keen’s continuing success is due more to schtick than quality prose.

Are “professionals” truly the epitome of excellence for writers, musicians, actors?

I do not begrudge Mr. Keen’s right to make provocative statements — his revolve around the them of “How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy” (the subtitle of his book The Cult of the Amateur) — but I do find the fawning attention given to his unsubstantiated comments disturbing. Put another way, would it be too much to ask that journalists exercise a strong dose of skepticism?

Across the board, critics cite Keen’s resume as evidence that his theories about the Internet are solid. Valid. Worthy of note. If that were the case, every failed dot-commer on the planet should be rushing to write book proposals. Just think, you, too, can be on Leno.

Granted, you have to polish one particular skill: the zinging one-liner. For all the nonsense that Keen spouts, he does it very well. Authors, likely by virtue of their preferred method of work, are not the greatest when it comes to public appearance. Who hasn’t felt sympathy pains while watching an author at a “reading”? Who didn’t feel that J.K. Rowling’s interview by Meredith Viera was forced — things got so much better when the kids asked the questions (though what kid would ask, in all seriousness, about an author’s influences?)? Keen has proven that a little media training is a very good thing indeed.

But I digress. I am, not surprisingly, very much in favor of the Internet. I am very much in favor of “amateurs” creating content. In fact, had this freedom been denied to me, well, you wouldn’t be bored to tears by this article. Cause. Effect. It’s so cool.

Keen’s primary argument seems to be that the Web 2.0 revolution is destroying the guardians of Old Media. In his mind, this is bad. Of course, the counter to this notion is that Old Media, stifled by shareholder accountability and never-ending consolidation, has corporatized (word? maybe.) itself into irrelevance. Across the board — movies, television, music, books, magazines — the pursuit of the dollar has lead to safe programming. Safe programming is code for “dull”.

If the amateurs of the world weren’t out there rebelling, every shelf in every bookstore would be filled with clones of The Da Vinci Code. It is the way of entertainment media to replicate past successes. Risk, when undertaken, is done with the kind of caution that one associates with grown men walking to the grocery store in helmets and padded suits. You never know when you might bump into a sharp corner.

You need look no further than the lack of serious analysis leading up the Iraq war for proof that traditional media failed at its job. You need look no further than commercial radio in any U.S. city to know that traditional media is failing its suppliers. You need look no further than the bought-and-paid-for displays in bookstores to understand that readers are the least important part of the publishing equation.

Of course, the major flaw in Keen’s argument is that the definition of amateur is so fluid. Am I truly amateur if I make money off of this site? If I am offered writing jobs on the basis of what I produce here? Do I remain amateur until NewsCorp purchases me? What is an amateur? More importantly, what is a professional? And are professionals truly the epitome of excellence for writers, musicians, actors?

Andrew Keen makes some fair points about the free-wheeling online culture. Anyone can start a blog; whether that’s advisable is another question. There is a lot of bad content being created and put out there for the world to find. It is not necessarily the best stuff that rises to the top — as a species, we do have a love of the lowbrow.

Rather than focusing on the bad, however, I like to think about the idea that so many humans are engaged in creative activities. There’s a lot of stuff being thrown at the wall and some of it is sticking. I also think about the fact that amateurs are giving consumers — readers, listeners, watchers — varied perspectives. They’re exploring the nooks and crannies of life that, sure, might only appeal to a small group of individuals. Is that really a bad thing? Don’t we all deserve the opportunity to connect with people who understand our obsessions?

While the Internet is an old concept, its present incarnation is barely legal. What rocks our world today will likely be seen as charmingly retro in five years. We are limited today more by technology than imagination.

Technorati Tags: creativity, writing, publishing, andrew keen, web 2.0, cult of the amateur