Jun 19

Oh, Snap! Web 2.0 is Destroying the World?

avatar Published in YouTubeWhite Stripesweb 20User Generated ContentToolShrekParis HiltonNirvanaNew MediaNBCMichael DurwinmassachusettsGrammy AwardsFantastic FourDave MathewsConsumer Generated ContentBritney SpearsBoston MetroBostonBlair Witch ProjectBBCAndrew Keen by Michael Durwin
User Rating: / 2
PoorBest 

Andrew Keen was interviewed in today’s Metro Boston discussing who Web2.0 was ruining the Internet and culture in general. He states in his new book “The Cult of Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture”:
“millions of millions of exuberant monkeys … are creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity,”

Original link: http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2007/200706/20070611/article_319089.htm 

Keen rips apart user-generated content as a threat to existing cultural standards saying that anyone with a keyboard and a camera or a microphone can make their own news, movies or music and disseminate it on the web. The crux of his stand is that this is disintermediating Hollywood, news outlets, record labels, etc. He further states; “My fear is that if Web 2.0 continues it’s sort of idealistic rampage through mainstream media, we’re going to be left with nothing but this level playing field, and professional media is going to be undermined.”
Wow!

What Keen is missing is that the cause behind the surge in user-generated media is the basic law of supply and demand. If the demand did not exist, the supply would dwindle. Why are there so few horse-drawn wagon repair shops? Because something better came along that people wanted: cars. The public constantly complains that today’s films and music, for the most part, suck. That’s not to say that there aren’t great movies and CDs being made. What is true is that many are jammed together, lowest-common-denominator targeted rehashing packaged for mass consumption. There wouldn’t be a half-dozen independent film channels if the public was happy with the available cinema. Certainly the latest Shrek or Fantastic Four has it’s audience (me for one), and a large one at that. But the public is fragmenting by choice. They are no longer willing to accept what they are force fed and are looking elsewhere for entertainment that touches them on a deeper level. I heard recently, so it may not be true, that most movies lose money. This is most likely due to the enormous operating costs of the studio, actors, special effects, directors, marketing, etc. Yet a little movie like the Blair Witch Project, made for $60,000, made over $29 million in it’s opening weekend. This was filmed with a small crew and limited cast, virtually no special effects, unless you count flashlights, and was marketed on the web by it’s writer and director. Blair Witch 2 was made for $15 million and made only $13 million it’s opening weekend. This one was made by a major production company. By the way, the original gets an 8 out of 10 stars rating while the major studio version got only 2 out of 10 stars.

There is a serious movement to abandon network news and news paper outlets in favor of consumer-generated news, blogs or the BBC. Many feel that due to their focus on the bottom line, network news agencies are focusing more on local drama or celebrity gossip than international news. As a musician, you don’t want me to get started on what record labels have been pushing. Keen says “I think record lables historically have found and polished marvelous talent.” Is he kidding?! Does he listen to the schlock on the radio? Are the Britney’s of the world really marvelous talent? Let’s not forget the Paris Hilton CD. This is typical of record company offerings. You don’t get very many White Stripes, Tools or Dave Mathews. Whether you like bands like this or not, they are quality musicians, writing quality music and releasing quality CDs. Not pre-packaged tarts with a crew of 50 year-old songwriters and mixing board gurus that represents a majority of record company releases. What he additionally fails to mention is the financial structire of record companies. Most bands don’t even make money from their CDs, the record companies keep it. Most must rely on ticket and t-shirt sales.



Trackback(0)
Comments (2)add comment

Colby Peterson said:

 
It sounds to me that Keen is struggling to realize and maintain his own relevance, which decreases as the tools of production become more and more accessible to the public. This is not a destruction of culture, culture isn't something that can be destroyed, but rather something that changes. What Keen really means is that he's threatened by "normal" people picking up a camera and sometimes gaining instant popularity.

Filmmakers should embrace and engage this democratization of the media, not shun or try to hamper it. Sure, there's a lot of crap on YouTube, but its a free marketplace of ideas, as Mike puts it, and that's how its going to be from now on. Culture is all that you put into it, so instead of lamenting the mediocrity of the web, maybe Keen should instead contribute.
June 20, 2007

Safa S said:

 
Great blog entry. :) For some reason, it pays off to be a contrarian in academic circles. I remember a few years ago when a well known writer wrote a book describing how some of the biggest names in ivory towers made their names by finding some controversial position, and supporting it with exactly three examples. And it gets the talk mills going (proof: Boston Globe interviewing Keen). The author of the Cult of the Amateur also has been getting a lot of national (and blogsphere) press...

My own thoughts on this are that Keen is wrong. How so? The major example of a creative field that has gone through a similar transformation is writing. For a grand majority of human history writing was the luxury of the well-pampered, and printing your book was considered a social status symbol. Did broad literacy programs, the printing press and the word processor vanquish great art? Far from it. Probably most of what we consider to be great in literature was born from the hands of those who had the least, and from people who would not have contributed if literacy, writing and printing instruments were only for the rich.

Also from hearing the CEO of MGM speak last semester, he clearly stated (and of course Keen is welcome take his complains to him) that independent production companies do a more efficient job (~30% lower costs) than major hollywood studios in producing films. Quite interesting. This is why MGH is now focusing entirely on the PR, marketing and distribution elements, and letting the production companies produce the product.
June 20, 2007

Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy