The Obama campaign included a plan that would ensure ”full and free exchange of ideas through an open internet”. In his recent book, ”The Cult of the Amateur”, Andrew Keen likens the internet to T. H. Huxley’s infinite monkey scenario in which it is supposed that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards would eventually write, without knowledge or understanding, all our great works of literature.
Keen’s point seems to be that because of our current usage of the internet true art and great ideas will no longer have a stage on which to be seen and heard; that they are being drowned in a mindless sea of internet chatter.
How do you feel about this democratization of knowledge? Can the Obama plan and Keen’s worries be compatible?
January 21, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I agreed with a good amount of Keen’s negative opinions about the democratization of knowledge; however, there was a specific point that I do not agree with. Keen quotes, “Instead of creating masterpieces, these millions and millions of exuberant monkeys –many with no more talent in the creative arts than our primate cousins–are creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity” (p. 2). Yes, there is a lot of amateurish content out there, but I don’t believe Keen has the power to decide that. He criticized the unprofessional writer, musician, and artist, but personally, these self-published “monkeys” can be more creative and genuine than the credible writers, musicians, and artists that are forced upon us by powerful publishers, record labels, and media. Not to sound cliché, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In terms of “Government 2.0,” I do believe that the Obama plan can be compatible with Keen’s worries because the government will still have obstacles when trying to transform communication with the public. It seems that Keen is looking for moderation and control over how content is gathered and disseminated, and maybe the federal government formalities will help with Keen’s desire to disperse reputable content (but who is to say that the government is trustworthy?).
I’d like to end this post with a comment that I believe depicts the main goal when working with social media: relationships.
“…Obama’s best shot at rebooting the government is to remember how he got there: making people feel that they were part of the solution and then enabling them to talk to one another and take action” (http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/magazine/17-02/ff_obama/)
January 25, 2009 at 2:32 am
I agree with Keen on many issues regarding the democratization of knowledge but not with his opinion that the current Web 2.0 culture is simply just the age of the noble amateur. With regards to informational sites such as Wikipedia, I do believe that there needs to be more control over content rather than simply allowing anyone to change a definition at will. Believing that an 18-year-old high school student knows more about mechanical engineering than someone who has studied the field more than 20 years is very unlikely. But on sites such as these, both individuals would have the same value of information. I don’t believe it’s the same way with everything. There are many independent film makers out there making videos on the web. There are many independent film festivals that reward newcomers to the film media with cash and sometimes a shot at the big time such as the Sundance Film festival. Sometimes knowledge can be gained through experience, even if it starts out as something on YouTube.
With regards to Obama’s plan to have everyone be able to exchange ideas over the internet, I’d have to agree that this does worry Keen. The government would have to be able to try and regulate some of the information and ideas and determine what is true and what is not. If I can share information with someone freely and it’s not true, what good will that benefit anyone? I believe that idea is noble enough but it will take a lot of work to correctly make it successful.
April 7, 2009 at 3:45 pm
So you see a difference between censorship and governmental determination of truth?
January 25, 2009 at 5:41 pm
The true artists, I believe, are the most passionate about their work. Because of this passion, I think the most important thing for an artist to do is showcase their work. Whether it is for fame, fortune, or whatever else, they should strive to be noticed. The idea that it is so easy today to upload almost anything to virtual space amazes me. This, as Keen says, could potentially be bad. It does not have to be. As I have stated, true artists are passionate about their craft/skill. This passion should be used to avoid being sucked under the Internets strong current.
A virtual stage is not the only place to showcase works. Although very available and convenient, it is not the only way. I think what is really important is for the artist to find all available platforms to expose their works to larger and larger audiences. It only takes one monkey to break away from the group and grab someones attention.
As for the governments plan to publicly release information, I think it is better said than done. Some information is just too compromising. Actually getting permission to release some information will probably cause a lot of legal issues that have never been fully addressed. It is interesting however to see that we (the public) have the potential to grow closer to our government with this idea of being “invited to the party.”
April 7, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Some good points, Myles. I would be concerned though about the assumption that those with more passion have more talent, and while I agree that it is important for the best art to reach larger audiences I do not know that today’s internet can automatically provide the means for that to happen.
On the government issue, the most critical point might be not be whether we are “invited” to the party. In a sense we always have been. It may be more about the means by which the party may be brought to us.
January 25, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I feel that Keen may not have to worry about a government 2.0 with Obama as president. The Wired Presidency: Can Obama Really Reboot the White House discusses seven obsticles that the Obama team will run into while trying to transform the way the White House connects with the public on pages six and seven. Page eight of the article talks about Obama’s plan for posting all pending nonemergency legislation online and allow the public to have five days to comment on it before a decision is made about it. I would personally like to view the legislation for my own knowledge, but do I think that my response to it will help decide if it gets signed or vetoed? No. The article states, “Even the system’s own architects concede that it’s unlikely that online comments and voting will sway the decision to sign or veto.” (p. 8) Not to mention that these posts will not reflect the American public as a whole. It will only be a select group of people contributing and some may not even be American. I think that people like to know that their voice is heard and that their ideas mean something, and unlike Keen, I believe that there are many creative ideas from everyday people that are worth reading. I think Obama knows this and that is why he wants to implement his plan for posting legislation and sharing ideas with the public. I think Obama and his team will give it their best shot to move to “government 2.0″, but I have to agree with Keen when he says, “Politics 1.0 remains the standard platform for American democracy” (p. 214)
Note: “The Wired Presidency: Can Obama Really Reboot the Whitehouse” is an article in WIRED issue 17.02
April 7, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Do you like cream with your coffee?
January 28, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Myles, to expand on your second paragraph, I think that artists can use the virtual world to inspire others and make a difference in others’ lives. For example, take an underground band that sings about positive change and only local people can be exposed to their music. Now, put this band all over the virtual world and their message with spread like a epidemic, for the better.
February 1, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I completely agree with Lauren’s post about Keen’s views on the democratization of knowledge. Who is Keen to say what constitutes credible sources of information. Keen even says in his book The Cult of the Amateur, “One person’s “true” becomes as true as anyone else’s.” (p. 17) I personally feel that I don’t know who to trust when looking for political information, or any information for that matter.
February 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I agree with Myles last comment about how we could grow closer to our government by “being invited to the party.” I agree with Katie’s comment about wanting to be able to see our legislation because although we wouldn’t have an impact on how the bill would go with our online comments and votes, at least we would not be left in the dark. It would just seem like a waste though if they even put up a comment and voting section if as in Katie’s post, “Even the system’s own architects concede that it’s unlikely that online comments and voting will sway the decision to sign or veto.” I feel that simply telling me what is going on is better than nothing, but do not give me an option about expressing how I feel about it if it will not matter in the end.