JumpinJesus

Are reality television and user-created content on the Internet the cultural equivalent of the Great Flood?

Aside from the explosion of on-line shopping, the Internet is probably best known for its user-created content. Sites like YouTube and the endless sea of blogs have given every single person with access to the Internet and the motivation the ability to create their own content for their own and their friends’ consumption. Once in a while, a cultural supernova explodes and a new meme is created or a new YouTube sensation is uncovered – for 15 minutes, of course. All it takes is a jovially overweight fellow lip-synching to the latest Euro-trash song for the rest of us to clap our hands excitedly and squeal with delight. It’s even better if he dances or falls down. Better still if she’s very attractive and dumb. The overwhelming idea here is that it takes absolutely no creativity or forethought to create content that will get the masses all a-twitter over the latest craze. You know you’ve hit it big if you see your pixelated capture while the hosts joke about it on your morning news program.

User-created content has become so wide-spread that even news organizations such as CNN and FOX rely on everyday schmucks to send in their cell phone video captures as an augmentation to their shrinking journalistic staffs.

Television relies more and more on reality-based shows that use every day average people in place of actors to carry out pre-scripted events and hopefully do it in an increasingly antagonistic manner in order to get viewers talking about what they saw. Let’s face it, in an age of 500 digital cable channels, it’s a hell of a lot harder to stand out to the average viewer than it was 20 years ago.

Do a search for blogs. How many are there? How many books are in your local library? I’m almost certain that there are currently more blogs in the blogosphere than the entire count of books ever published. How many bloggers fancy him or herself the next Faulkner, the next Bukowski? The problem is that these bloggers often haven’t the slightest clue how to form a proper sentence, much less how to spell elementary words like ridiculous or definite, much less conjugate certain helping verbs like would have, could have, should have. To make matters worse, we uphold this ignorance as a badge of honor, as if those who might point out the illiterate notions of the communicatively disabled are somehow being stodgy or elitist. It is as if there is pride in illiteracy and we all applaud it.

What this boils down to is that our mass media, pop culture-driven entertainment juggernaut relies more and more heavily on amateur nobodies dying for their 15 minutes of fame in a Titanic-riddled sea of attention seekers. Instant pop stardom is the shattered piece of drift-wood among a sea of drowning wannabes and everybody is clawing to grip on to a piece of board in the freezing waters of irrelevance.
User-created content sites are the modern day, grown-up equivalent to the delusional galleries all parents have in their kitchen where they magnetically adhere their kids’ crappy crayon doodles as masterpieces for all their friends to see and comment on.

“Oh, your Spencer is just so talented!”

“Isn’t that a precious kitty Meghan colored!”

“Look at that tree! It looks so real! Oh, it’s a dump truck? Either way it’s just so precious!”

“Wow, that’s a terrific photograph. You really do have a great eye!”

“That’s the best stick-figure comic I’ve ever read!”

Where does all this leave actual talent, the real, raw, developed talent that only a rare few of all people possess? How much of it gets ignored or lambasted as pretentious by the jealous purveyors of mediocrity? What chance does real talent have when we’re told and we swallow the notion that user-created content, created by people whose only talent is the ability to press a button on their cell-phone or turn on their web-cam, is real, raw, viral, and most of all, authentic? It’s like amateur porn. Sure, it might be unscripted, but it’s often woefully unattractive.

Are we in the midst of a cultural Great Flood where we’re becoming awash in an ocean of mediocrity-held-up-as-genius? Is the chance of discovering a creative walnut in the batter of eternal mediocrity worth the price the rest of us pay who must wade through this tripe? Will this torrent ever end? Where’s the cultural Noah’s Ark?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

thingstodo

I think you may be right.

Mass media - mainly TV - takes in all the garbage people offer up and market it as entertainment. Unfortunately, our society has fallen in love with reality TV so what the "news" programs are feeding people is just more of the same. Moreover, many "news" networks like MSNBC for the democtats and Fox News for the republicans feeds the reality desires with content that matches viewers beliefs. That downside is that many take this garbage for news and never see a balances perspective. either on TV or the internet. That's because they tune in right for their program or go directly to places on the internet.

Newspapers are the only vehicle for a way to share news that people actually stumble upon things they didn't already know about.

We are doomed.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

biznatch

Sounds like the usual alarmist: "My Culture is dying" thing. TV hasn't killed the arts, video didn't kill radio, and the internet will not kill books. I don't know, but these things irk me.
It just feels like all our cultural values are shrinking because of the vast amount of information, opinions, and thoughts written on the internet. But just because something increases in size and availability doesn't mean it's the end of all other types of media.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

mixedmedia

I agree to an extent on this subject and I think intellectual laziness is largely to blame. It's just easier to appreciate mediocrity - you don't have to actually think about it to have a positive response to it and you don't have to be bothered with having a lasting response that colors your perceptions and makes you rethink what you thought you knew.

Most things are mediocre therefore is it simpler to relate to - 'I like this song because it sounds a lot like that other song I used to like;' 'this piece of art is beautiful because it represents a scene or a thing that I can easily comprehend'; 'I like this tv show because it portrays fragments of 'reality' with edits and sound effects that are telling me how to respond to it.'

But the cultural Noah's Ark is there. It's always been there for people who want to hop on board. It's in museums and libraries and record shops and even Netflix and Amazon. Even for those of us (like me) who live in a cultural wasteland - you just have to get off your ass and go find it.

But, it's always been that way to some extent. Mainstream human entertainment in general is not often known for its cultural ascendancy. There is just such a preponderance of crap around now - it is overwhelming sometimes.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

filtherton

There's art for every level of art appreciation. A lot of user created content is crap. A lot of it isn't. A lot of "good" art is pretentious drivel. A lot of it isn't.

The thing about art is that people like what they like, and if they happen to like derivative bullshit, then that's what they like. The propensity for enjoying derivative bullshit predates the prevalence of user generated content by at least a Michael Bolton. There will always be people who have more discriminating tastes and thanks to the internet they have an even easier time finding content to satisfy their discriminating taste.

And I don't think the internet necessarily promotes drivel. If anything, the internet makes it easier for a person to develop a taste for the good shit. Prior to the internet one had to rely more on traditional media to tell them what was good, which was itself fairly problematic. Thanks to user generated content, someone who lives on the Iron Range in northern Minnesota can listen to Hip Hop created in Minneapolis whenever they want. 15 years ago that person would have been stuck buying CDs at their local WalMart or listening to the vast wasteland that is corporate radio unless they wanted to drive down every so often to re-up in the scene.

Content sharing sites also provide a venue for amateurs and professionals to critique each other's work and share tricks of the trade, which is good for content quality.

Artists benefit too. User created content makes getting their work out there so much easier.

I don't know how one can be truly aware of all of the things made possible by user generated content and still wistfully look back on the days before it.

Plan9

I bet somebody had the same thought when literacy became all the rage.

"Great, now any god-damn peon can read. There goes civilization."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Daniel_

They were right, too.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Plan9

Human progress: Defined by a series of forward moving "failures" that benefit the masses.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Charlatan

I think this is exactly right.

Yes, much of the user-generated content is "garbage". So what? I welcome it. To me it is the democratization of content. Why should we be beholden to "taste makers" to tell us what we should like?

Just because someone else likes James Joyce doesn't mean that he turns *my* crank. The same is true for Elvis on velvet (ironically taken or not).

The thing to remember is that the swelling in the ranks does not mean that there is less "good" art or content it just means that there is more of everything. Popular culture has almost always been the home to works that reach for a mass audience. With the distribution of the Internet and the means of production now cheap and available to millions around the world, it should come as no surprise that there is a rapid increase in content of all sorts.

Make no mistake though, so called high art and literature is still being produced and thanks to the Internet's global distribution it is readily available to that same mass audience should they choose to look for it. Walter Benjamin wrote in Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction that the photograph would democratize art and how we see the world. Little did he know that cheap cameras and global networks would take that concept to a stage beyond *anything* that he could dream.

I have a feeling that those who decry the absence of quality content are either not looking hard enough or are just plain old art snob elitists who don't want those with the "common touch" playing their sandbox.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JumpinJesus

This word elitist has been bandied about a lot recently.

I get the impression that it is used derisively.

What's an elitist?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Charlatan

I take the position that elitist is someone that takes pride in belonging to a select or favoured group... at the exclusion of others.

I have no issue with people seeking to be elite (i.e. the best at what they do). I do take issue with those who would exclude others because they are too "common" or "base" (not elite enough?).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

mixedmedia

I think the word elitist defines a person who prefers to interact with and inhabit a world of high cultural ideas, such as art appreciation and intellectualism - which is often associated with wealth and (in the old days) aristocracy. I think this is the context Charlatan is referring to.

Most often around here I think it is defined by the person who uses it. Often by someone who feels they are personally diminished simply by the opinion, desire or perspective of another person.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

but then again, Charles may answer for himself

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

JumpinJesus

In that light, I'm not sure what art-snob elitism has to do with this thread.

This thread was about the quality if creative content and how the deluge of poor quality creative content makes it difficult for those with actual talent to have a place to be noticed simply because those with the distribution power find it more profitable to market cheap product.

You work in television if I remember correctly. I'm sure that there are a lot of shows that don't make it on the air. There must be some level of quality control or is the selection of programming random with no regard to quality content?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

mixedmedia

I consider myself to be somewhat of an elitist in that I have high standards for myself and appreciate the camaraderie to be had with people who have similar standards. It doesn't mean that I expect to lord it over people indiscriminately or as a means of self-validation.

So in my estimation elitism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

Pertaining to the bolded part, to my knowledge there has only been one time in American history where superior talent and mass distribution merged to become a popular and profitable enterprise and that is in the production of jazz music from about the years 1935 through 1965. Otherwise, it's always been this way.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

powerclown

Britney Spears' new video "Circus" is actually really groovy. It's visually astounding and really quite creative. Maybe even elite, but who's to say its all so objective.

mixedmedia

now you are just provoking me.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

filtherton

The same force responsible for this deluge of poor quality creative content is also responsible for an overall increase in the ability of creative content producers to get noticed. You can't separate the two. The same phenomena that is responsible for ebaum's world is responsible for the fact that my mom knows who Banksy is.

And in any case, I don't think you're being consistent. Your claim that the masses have the ability to produce and distribute their own creative content is inconsistent with your claim that those with distribution power favor cheap product. It's all cheap product, and anyone with access to the internet has distribution power.

Manic_Skafe

I don't care so much about what's out there for easy consumption - the more options the better. But it seems more difficult than ever for a skilled creative individual to make a living.

It's all pretty subjective but I can't help but to notice that something strange is going on when most of the experienced, art degree holding photographers I know have either resigned themselves to shooting weddings or working in another field entirely while plenty of other photographers start up a website, undercut the market and are thriving in no time.

weird.

__________________
"Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

ngdawg

If you were to go thru a site like Deviant Art or Flickr, you can see they each run the gamut from "refridgerator art" to professionals.
I don't see a problem with this, really. If some 13 year old wants to put her lousy drawings online so grandma can show her clueless Bingo buddies, what's the harm in it?
Things have always been like this. Is Annie Liebowitz really THAT talented or lucky? An ad came to work touting a photography show at a prestigious gallery in Manhattan and they showed one of the photographer's pieces in the ad.(not Leibowitz)
To say my boss was agast would be an understatement. The image looked like one of those "what's wrong with this picture" games. But she's not the one with the exclusive show. It's all in the salesmanship.

You can't dictate taste anymore than you can fix stupid. Everyone might think they're being cheated out of their due because someone with less talent is getting the notices but it's like street vendors-if one corner is crowded, find another corner.

Mediocrity may prevail because most people are mediocre. But I do think there is room for real talent and when it's there, it is noticed. I just also happen to think that because of such easy access to all things technical, we're seeing it more in all forms.

As for "reality shows"-they're just a cheaper way to gain advertising dollars. If people would stop leaving them on for background noise, they'd eventually dry up. They're a result of cheap laziness.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

powerclown

Well ok, its not Bud Powell, but its pretty good. Ok, maybe not.

Cynthetiq

I find that it makes it harder to find what is good and actually know that it is good. What used to be diamonds in the rough that got refound as cult status reach that immediately as an instant meme.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

mixedmedia

I don't know. I've never found it 'easy' to find the artists, musicians, writers, etc. that I like. People shouldn't have to be told what is good. Maybe that is part of the problem. Maybe a side effect of this bombardment of information will be that people will become more discerning.

yeah right

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Charlatan

I may be reading your intention incorrectly but I find that whenever this subject comes up it largely stems from those who take a generally negative view of popular culture. As I said above, I may not like Velvet Elvis but someone does or they wouldn't be available on every suburban street corner. I also think the opposite is true. If I don't get or like James Joyce there's always something else to amuse me.

Too often I hear those who look at pop culture and say, "that's rubbish". The implication being, "it shouldn't be there because it isn't good enough." To that I always say, "who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't like?"

As far as the commercialization of content that isn't good quality taking work away from those who "have talent". I agree with Filtherton. The increase of distribution and the lower entry level for content creation thanks to the Internet and the digitalization of the means of production are good things that have made it easier for everyone to share their content.

The thing that always pisses off those who "know what's good" is that the masses don't always appreciate what's on offer. They don't like it or they don't get it.

This was true before the Internet and it is just as true today. It's never been easy for artists to get paid for their work. And now it's even harder because anyone with a camera can take a photo for their publications (or whatever you might be getting paid to create).

This isn't going change. Instead, artists will need to find different business models (easier said than done).

For me, it comes down to this. The democratization of content creation and distribution is a good thing. The more people who are involved in the process the better. Getting paid is going to be difficult as is getting noticed.

This not new.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

roachboy

from what i've figured out, the main difference between net-based work and older print-based forms is the breakdown of the old distribution model. part of that model was a more-or-less system of critics, who generated reviews, the main function of which was to tell the readers whether a particular object is class-appropriate first and within that whether it is "good" or not. so like folk have been saying, it's now easy to put stuff out, make it public---but it's not at all easy to get that stuff which you make public noticed or picked up or whatever. i dont think this has to do so much with the quality of work--and i don't think it's only now the case that alot of folk who enjoy working with a particular medium don't necessary make fantastic things. alot of the time alot of things that are made are not very good--but alot of the time alot of the things that arget made are very good indeed. i agree with charlatan on this, i guess.

but ore generally, we've lived within a highly centralized and centralizing model of cultural distribution for a very long time and are only now starting to get an idea of what decentralization might look like--the only thing that's changed across this is the nature of the intermediary system(s).

as for the question of what is and is not crap---it's like arguing about what fun is.
i dont think it matters from the point of view of a producer what you as consumer think about the thing you consume.
i think when someone who makes stuff asks you what you think of it, chances are they're just being nice. you know, sociable. because there's no way to account for or speak to the diversity of psychological backgrounds in the world, there's no way to account for what other people like or do not like in what you're doing---i think folk mostly work guided by an idea of what they themselves like or enjoy and hope that other people like or enjoy similar things enough so that maybe, just maybe someday you can stop working these stupid day gigs and devote your attention to making stuff.
past that, it doesn't matter.

i think that in the pseudo-democracy of consumer-cult folk have acquired this strange notion that their consumer preferences actually matter at a level that goes beyond toggling on or toggling off--you choose to enter a particular game or you play another one. but they don't matter.

i don't regard this as an attitude that is particularly anything--it just seems to me how things are.
it's hard to make stuff and harder still to make good stuff and harder still to know what good is and almost impossible to keep that notion of what's good from moving around so in a way its like chasing the dragon. if that's true, then folk who make things have enough problems on their hands without worrying about what consumers think. if you don't like what someone makes, go interact with something else. all it means is that you would prefer to do something else with your time. the object you do not choose to interact with may or may not suck because you make that choice. maybe the object is fine and you suck. it's possible. just saying....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite