On Amateurs and Art
Adam Gurri points out that blogging has made it possible for professionals to write about their respective fields and to do it for free, reducing demand for (if not obviating) science and economics journalists. He compares this to the economics of actors.
From Wired Blogs:
http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2009/01/guest-post-acti.html and http://cloudculturecontent.blogspot.com/2009/01/free-content-in-cloud.html
”The thing about acting is that the labor force (actors) actually value the ability to do work in that field that they are willing to take on work for nothing and take on other jobs as a sort of cross-subsidy. There is a sort of demand for employment in theater, which makes competition among actors so fierce as to actually drive down wages (at time of entry at least) to zero or near zero.”
I think you can extend this further. Advances in technology have made it possible for amateurs to produce music, publish fiction, and make movies at a fraction of their cost a decade ago. More importantly, the internet has made the cost of distribution for amateurs practically zero. This probably means that industries based on moving scarce content created by a few professionals to a mass audience willing to consume homogeneously will die off. Too many people are willing to work for free, and now professionally created content has to compete with the amateur price point.
Does this mean an inevitable decline in quality, as amateurs and outsiders lay waste to old Hollywood? In the short term probably, as true craftsmanship requires long hours of devotion. On the other hand, commercial distribution has never been a guarantee of quality or artistry. If you don’t believe me, compare any episode of internet series Chad Vader with any episode of Perfect Strangers and then tell me how Perfect Strangers is better.
As an extremely amateur content producer, I find this exciting and liberating. The era of commercial success as validation of art is nearly over, and the pressure to be a “published” author greatly reduced, but I wonder what happens when all artists are amateurs?
I would argue that artists are eternally amateurs and what most professionals actually sell is not art but something else. Professional success as an actor, writer, or musician has long meant perseverance over rejection and the willingness to work hard and play the game well. I admire this perseverance, but it’s often orthogonal to the quality of the art produced. Could it be better for the artists’ work to compete on its own merits in a market of ideas, allowing each work to find its true audience?
* * *
If you’re interested in the future of art and amateurism, check out this piece in Heyoka Magazine<>, an interview with the patron saint of amateurism, Billy B. Childish:
http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.7.MUSIC.billycHILDISH.htm
”I wasn’t allowed to sing in the School choir or anything like that because the music teacher told me that I was tone deaf. He’d listen out to us in turn and when he came to me I got the elbow. So I never learned to sing or play an instrument. I was warned off that type of thing. I always find that strange in school - if you are not good at music, you’re not allowed to do it but if you’re not good at math, they make you do it more.”ete on its own merits in a market of ideas, allowing each work to find its true audience?
