How Today’s Internet isn’t Killing our Culture

The main theme of Andrew Keen’s book, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing our Culture, can be summed up in a few sentences. Unfortunately for Keen, these were uttered 46 years ago, and by someone else talking about an earlier media “threat” to our way of life.

“When television is good, nothing—not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers—nothing is better,” said FCC chairman Newton Minow in a now-famous 1961 speech. “But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there…until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland.”

Keen’s book is a polemic that targets “today’s internet,” or Web 2.0., rather than television. His most pungent bile is reserved for user-generated social media, such as blogs, wikis and video-sharing sites. According to Keen, millions of preening, narcissistic, know-nothing “amateurs” are “perpetuating the cycle of misinformation and ignorance.”

Wikiality? 
Furthermore, Keen contends, Web 2.0 is threatening our legacy of trusted print and media professionalism, is damaging intellectual property rights, destroying musicians’ and journalists’ and writers’ livelihoods, eroding our faith in advertising (?!) and, predictably, stealing the innocence of our children.

Indeed. Wikiality is taking over the world, and the sky, it’s, you know, falling.

Today’s internet is certainly changing our culture. But killing it? Hardly. In fact, I’d argue that the Gutenberg press, which ushered in a new era of print media in the 15th century, was far more disruptive. Then, more efficient printing led to a more rapid dissemination of information that in turn spawned revolutions (social, religious, scientific) that we’re still feeling the effects of half a millennium later.

It’s possible that this little user-generated content revolution of ours will be as disruptive, but somehow I doubt it.

Counter (Pop) Culture
In fact, my own experience suggests that today’s internet, far from destroying our cultural heritage, can very much enrich it. For example, I write a column for a website and online community called Dandyism.net. It’s dedicated to a highly esoteric bit of cultural history that, before the Web, was quite inaccessible to all but the most dedicated academics, and was in danger of being lost. This month, a little over three years after the site went live, some 10,000 visitors will enjoy some of the best writing on the web (if I do say so myself), while 350 registered community members worldwide will argue politely and eruditely over everything from social history to art criticism to grooming tips.

As a result of my involvement with this online community, my real-world experience of culture and the arts has been greatly enhanced. I’ve been a guest at formal dinners in London, have lodged and been entertained at the historic Arts Club of Washington, and have even been invited to a burlesque circus in Seattle, among many other rewards.

Recently, Dandyism.net’s founder, Christian Chensvold, started a new site and community called FineArtsLA.com. (Needless to say, it’s about the fine arts scene in Los Angeles.) As a result, we’ve both been able to experience culture—the ballet, the symphony, the opera and so forth—in ways we would not otherwise have been able to. Not bad for a gentleman amateur.

I constantly refer to social media sites to help expand my intellectual and cultural universe. One of my new favorites is Goodreads.com, where people use new media to share insight into old media: books. I also view quite a lot of content at online video-sharing sites. Personally, I’m not so much interested in some 20-something’s “Jackass” remakes. Rather, I watch things like snippets of old Dick Cavett interviews with greats like Orson Welles or Kate Hepburn. These sites also offer quite a bit of original fine arts-related multimedia content created by people looking to give new life to old art and make it appealing to a new audiences.

That’s a noble goal. Today’s internet may appear to be a vast wasteland, but only if you don’t know where—or how—to look.

Well, which is it?
Keen’s thesis suffers from its internal contradictions. For one, he roundly condemns blogging as an infinite number of monkeys banging away on an infinite number of typewriters. Yet Keen himself writes a blog. I guess he is the one monkey who can blog-up a script for Hamlet. In another instance, Keen cites poll stats to support his thesis. Then, a few pages later, he tells us that there is no wisdom in the wisdom of crowds. Apparently people only know what they’re talking about when what they say supports his ideas.

Certainly, today’s Internet is disruptive, in the sense that the Internet is a catalyst to change in many aspects of our lives and culture. It’s true that traditional media, as we have known it, faces significant challenges. Empires may fall, and new ones rise to take their places. Some people could lose their jobs and may be forced to acquire new skills. Blood may even be spilt. Who knows?

Somehow I think things will shake out, as they always have, and art and journalism and authorship will continue to flourish. Personally, I can’t wait to see where the dust settles, if it settles at all. In the meantime, we’ll have to continue to separate the media wheat from the chaff, as we’ve always had to do.

And Keen should cool it with his headline-grabbing Chicken Little schtick. 

Read more on this topic in the blogosphere:

Lawrence Lessig takes a swing

Clay Shirky is not impressed with the whole Luddite thing

David Weinberger commits one of Keen’s cardinal sins: Thou shalt not “vlog”

Of course, what do these little bloggers know?

—Michael Mattis, Head Shameless Web 2.0 Booster