Standards have been lowered. The information age and the ever expanding accessibility of technology have given the tools and materials to create art to the masses. This phenomenon has frequently inspired jubilation, revolution, and instilled a sense of hope in the artistic future where the untapped talents of millions (whose efforts may go unnoticed because of class or geographical persecutions) are able to express themselves. However, as Andrew Keen delved into this new method of artistic development with his book Cult Of The Amateur, as well as the public’s relationship to discourse, a crippling side effect has arisen; The ability for artistically untrained and unpractised individuals to flood the public forum with their numerous creative works has lowered our discursive standards on the quality of art.

The central focus of previous essays have prompted that one must participate more actively in a public space to develop their creativity, and by extension, society’s overall creative output. The primary examples to support this were drawn from Andrew Keen’s experience with the downfall of Tower Records, a purveyor of rare and uncommercial music. The business’ collapse was largely due to the public’s growing taste for purchasing music and films online in the comfort of their own home. What Keen, and ultimately myself argued for, was the presence of the Cultural Tastemaker, an individual who is steeped in knowledge regarding the catalogue of media they are selling to the public. The most crucial factor that defines the Tastemaker, is that their depth of understanding is their profession and unencumbered by personal bias or taste. The Tastemaker does not have an agenda or preference (at least in regards to their relation with the public), they only have a counter culture “phd” in their respective vocation. The wealth of knowledge that this person has is not limited to larger corporate power’s marketing influence. This knowledge is in a sense an expression of power “Knowledge linked to power, not only assumes the authority of the ‘truth’ but has the power to make itself true.” (Hall, 49) This Tastemaker’s knowledge yields a certain truth to their experience, a validity to their credibility. Yet now with more people shopping for media from home, there is no Tastemaker, only what Itune’s feels is most economically viable. The unbiased influence of the professional record store owner has yielded to monopolized and far more limited selections of media for those who are hungry for new art and entertainment. The human touch, or, the experiential exchange between buyer and seller, allows for a more organic and fulfilling experience when searching for creative satisfaction. The ability for the beginner guitarist that owns a webcam to make their art “public” (via the internet) is detrimental as this exhibition is majoritively contributed to by the amateur. There is no Tastemaker to police and regulate the quality that erupts unfettered by each user with a broadband connection. Channelling Foucault, Hall suggests that, “Foucault became even more concerned with how knowledge was put to work through discursive practices in specific institutions to regulate the conduct of others… power operated in what he called an institutional apparatus and it’s technologies.” (Hall, 47) This Tastemaker is a representative of a cultural institutional apparatus, and utilizes knowledge to display power. To counter my own point, it could be assumed that this approach would be extremely fascistic and counter intuitive; who is to say this “Tastemaker’s” opinion is the most important? Who can ultimately decide what relevant art is?

I am not arguing that the hopeful beginner’s work should be censored or automatically considered irrelevant because they are inexperienced or come from humble beginnings, but that the reliance on a purely online “Public Forum” creates mediocre production values. It highlights the work of those who are possibly not yet accomplished in their creative processes, as the notion of having your work in progress so easily viewed is incredibly tempting. This phenomenon lowers the mass public’s expectations, that the gritty and unpolished auterism of the amateur posting on myspace is the commonplace. “Meanings, consequently, will always change, from one culture or period to another.” (Hall,61) Therefore, the discourse on artistic quality changes, and adapts to this new method of expression. Where then do the practiced and artisanal creators of the future find their inspiration, when it is perfectly acceptable to accept compromised work that is removed from any outside cultural history? Our art becomes removed from the street, from the studio, from the gallery, from the exhibition. It is removed from the discourse, where the work gains more ground and relevance when placed on a wall where others can apply it to a greater cultural and urban framework. The work evolves when others interact with it openly. This is commented on by Hall who posits, “But the discourse also produces a place for the subject (ie the reader or viewer, who is also ’subjected to’ discourse) from which its particular knowledge and meaning most makes sense.” (Hall, 56) On the internet, the work that is produced is accepted regardless, forcibly implanted into a sea of digital expressions with no moderation or greater cultural context save for the semi understandable “comments” page of detached voices and inarticulate solipsistic diatribe. The massive output of media from users on the internet mirrors the panopticon concept developed by Foucault, where the person accessing the media (in the position of the guard in the panopticon) sees all cells (various artistic output) with nothing preventing them from accessing all the information. Yet the works being viewed are prisoners themselves, unable to be accessed outside of the cold digital box they are being displayed in, far removed from any living contact. The works are trapped, remain in stasis while we watch them at a distance unable to interact or place apart from the other numerous cells. There is certainly potential to find the rare gem of an artist who would have been unable to locate with their access to a computer, but how do we inspire future artists when they are brought up in an environment where it is acceptable to stay in their house, away from culture, and make art that is quite simply, “easy”.?

If our film and music industries (to name two prominent forces) were to adapt their sales campaigns to strive to give their product the treatment a piece in an art gallery would receive, then the reliance on quality would once again reign supreme. This process weeds out the dedicated, calls upon the artist to prove themselves as relevant and unique, and be active participants among other people in a public forum. Should the trend of the amateur continue, form in art may disappear entirely, with great and vast cultural tradition sacrificed for simple and non methodical “expression, How would we find satisfaction in art and relate to one another, if it becomes fiercely independent and subjective? How far will the slump in quality make us compromise the formal values that have been developed for centuries? And finally, perhaps the most alienating questions of all; Are all people artistically created equal? Are some people just meant to be the ones that have their expression take priority? Yes.

Hall, Stuart.

“The Work Of Representation” in Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, pp. 41 – 63. c 2003 Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Keen, Andrew.

Cult Of The Amateur, How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture, United States; Currency, 2007

No related posts.