Sunday, July 1, 2007
"The Cult of the Amateur"
The New York Times article, by Michiko Kakutani, The Cult of the Amateur, caught my eye on Friday. Kakutani is actually writing about Andrew Keen's new book by the same name.
The premise? That "Web 2.0 is changing the cultural landscape and not for the better." Web 2.0, by the way, is the moniker given to the next generation of Internet and networked software models.
Social networks. Public authorship. Collective intelligence. Rich user experiences. And so on and so forth. It's the update on what took root in software in the 1990s -- collaborative computing, knowledge management, ever-faster software updates, and constant iteration with user input.
I spent over a decade in the software industry and the promises don't sound so different year-in and year-out.
So why did The Cult of the Amateur catch my attention so firmly? I've been reflecting on the nature of excellence for the past couple of years. Are solutions better when "everyone gets a voice" and "every voice is equal?" Are we losing our respect for expertise and mastery?
The NYT article quotes author, Keen, as saying:
"What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment."
My knee jerk response? "Yes! That's it." I found myself agreeing with this Keen character on the "cult of the amateur." I wanted to know more. Straight to Amazon.com to check out the reviews.
I found it interesting to note that one of the founders of Wikipedia considered Keen's book "thought-provoking and sobering" and looks forward to the "much-needed debate." The former editor-in-chief of ZDNet also weighed in with a similar perspectives. These are insiders to the Web 2.0 revolution. Pro technology. Pro debate.
Back to excellence. The thing is that when we get too attached to a view of the world (mine being frequently that too many unqualified people are making too much noise -- and altogether too publicly), we're stuck.
Whether we lobby for "more depth" (competence, expertise, etc.) or rail against "shrill opinions" (uninformed, emotional takes, etc.) the process of being "against" things clouds possibility and keeps both sides stuck in one place.
So, let me start with a question instead of an opinion. If the answer is Web 2.0, what's the question?
The premise? That "Web 2.0 is changing the cultural landscape and not for the better." Web 2.0, by the way, is the moniker given to the next generation of Internet and networked software models.
Social networks. Public authorship. Collective intelligence. Rich user experiences. And so on and so forth. It's the update on what took root in software in the 1990s -- collaborative computing, knowledge management, ever-faster software updates, and constant iteration with user input.
I spent over a decade in the software industry and the promises don't sound so different year-in and year-out.
So why did The Cult of the Amateur catch my attention so firmly? I've been reflecting on the nature of excellence for the past couple of years. Are solutions better when "everyone gets a voice" and "every voice is equal?" Are we losing our respect for expertise and mastery?
The NYT article quotes author, Keen, as saying:
"What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment."
My knee jerk response? "Yes! That's it." I found myself agreeing with this Keen character on the "cult of the amateur." I wanted to know more. Straight to Amazon.com to check out the reviews.
I found it interesting to note that one of the founders of Wikipedia considered Keen's book "thought-provoking and sobering" and looks forward to the "much-needed debate." The former editor-in-chief of ZDNet also weighed in with a similar perspectives. These are insiders to the Web 2.0 revolution. Pro technology. Pro debate.
Back to excellence. The thing is that when we get too attached to a view of the world (mine being frequently that too many unqualified people are making too much noise -- and altogether too publicly), we're stuck.
Whether we lobby for "more depth" (competence, expertise, etc.) or rail against "shrill opinions" (uninformed, emotional takes, etc.) the process of being "against" things clouds possibility and keeps both sides stuck in one place.
So, let me start with a question instead of an opinion. If the answer is Web 2.0, what's the question?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
