Monday, October 13, 2008

The Cult of the Amateur

In his book, Andrew Keen complains about "a flattening of our culture." What do you think he means by that phrase and why does the phrase -- or, more precisely, what it represents -- seem to scare him so much? Please respond prior to class, Monday, Oct. 20.

17 comments:

Joseph said...

I believe Andrew Keen uses the phrase a “ flattening of our culture” because he feels the change in structure among the technological landscape. The first chapter Keen speaks of how the internet is in a transitional phase right now, “Web 2.0" he refers to it as. A phase in which the mass majority has the power to control content and ideas. Without thinking to much about it that concept seems like a smart and refreshing idea, however, this concept scares Keen because of what it can lead too. As of now the internet has no regulatory setup for information. A PHD scholar has the same impact on Wikipedia as I do. Not that I think I am stupid, but I guarantee that a PHD scholar has a little more experience and insight then I do on particular subjects. The internet is leveling the playing fields for opinion and truth. Keen speaks of how 2 + 2 = 4. Which is true no matter what part of the earth you stand on. However, that is because we all have agreed on that principal. 2+2 can easily equal 5, as long as we all agreed it did. When millions of us have our own voice and are expressing our own form of the truth on a situation, then who can say what is the correct form of truth over anyone else. The other concept that Keen fears is how do we know that the blog post or article is a regular average American or is it a company posing as an average citizen to persuade a particular point of view or because they are trying to sell us their products? The next dilemma the technological boom has to be aware of is who is controlling the thoughts behind the post.

mcummings said...

The phrase "Flattening of our culture" has to do with our culture hitting a plateau because of the technological advances. He specifically discusses web 2.0 and the damge it does to our culture. when the internet began it was seen as a great oppurtunity for cultural growth. Keen points out that it kind of does the oppisite, and i think that is what he fears. for example he uses how truth is very obscured on the internet. videos on youtube, post on sites like myspace are all taken as truths when they are the complete oppisite. the internet was supposed to bring more intelligence, but it has only made us more gullable to the falacies on the internet. keen states "web 2.0 revolution is less culture, less reliable,news, and a chaos of useless information". People did not invision the internet to be a space where people with no education and people with PHDs can submit information that is seen as reliable truth on the same space with no objection. I think Keen is trying to say that the technology that was supposed to positively influence our culture , but it has only negatively impacted. THis is what i beleive Keen is talking about.

Jessica said...

Andrew Keen's statement concerning the "flattening of culture" refers to the fact that with the creation of blogs, YouTube and Wikipedia, to name a few, there are no longer any boundaries that point out the differences between truth and falsehood in the media. The "blurring [of] the lines between traditional audience and author, creator and consumer, expert and amateur" are indistinguishable because the authors or creators of blogs, YouTube and Wikipedia are most likely of the same caliber and of the same education as most of its audience members and consumers. The people that are now responsible for getting their version of the truth or their thoughts on the internet through these portals can be educated Harvard professors with severe knowledge on a specific subject, but they could also be just another member of society who thinks it amusing to post false information and rumors about a certain subject. For example, Keen asks, "Can a social worker in Des Moines really be considered credible in arguing with a trained physicist over string theory?" or more absurdly, "Can a car mechanic have as knowledgeable a 'POV' as that of a trained geneticist on the nature of hereditary diseases?" Not only could something prove to be untrue, but this "information" could be opinionated or swayed to make one party look better than another. Without the barriers of qualified, educated reporters or editors and fact-checkers, the internet is turning into a venue for as much unreliable information as there is reliable. There is also no way of knowing the true identity of the writers of these blogs, much like you can never know for sure who the real person behind a Myspace username is. For example, Michael Hilzik, a journalist, "aggressively defended his own work on his opponents' Websites." With all of this false information and identity, Keen is afraid that the popularity of these blogs and websites will grow out of control to the point that society will be more apt to rely on their peers rather than the actual truth. The "blurring" between truth and fiction has become so prominent that no one can even distinguish the two apart and are willing to believe anything they read or hear.

Alyssa said...

Keen's phrase "a flattening of our culture" is used to refer to that fact that our culture went from being intellectually stimulating, partly because of the subject matter and partly because of how the information had to be transferred and obtained, to being technologically advanced to the point where people are too plugged in and over-saturated with it. To a world (Web 2.0) that contains endless pieces of information and news and facts that are put there by anybody and everybody. The reliability, reputation and accuracy information no longer holds significance and must be doubted, questioned and further researched before it can (or should) be trusted and taken as truth. All of society has the power to control the content that is circulated, so while the opportunity for more ideas to be presented is there, it keeps progressing to the point where these ideas reflect the general values of society itself, therefore narrowing the scope of information and news. There is a weakening of regulation so false information is mixed in with truthful news and distinguishing between the two is not always a simple task. Numerous students and citizens alike go to Wikipedia to obtain general information about a topic. Some might naively rely on this for their sole source of information, while others might use this as a basis to decide what to look for in other sources. But not everybody knows or cares enough to work in this way. Another way that our culture is becoming "flatter" is that while news and information is becoming increasingly unreliable and regulated, the world is turning corporate and reflecting what the few corporations that own and run these Internet sources believe and want us to become. Advertisements on every page and creation of new types of media constantly emerging is a sure sign that being as plugged in as possible is the society that wants to emerge.

chloe said...

Author Andrew Keen references the phrase “flattening of culture” to describe the abundance of infinite material and concepts that are created, sold, and advertised on the Web 2.0. Keen and author Chris Anderson suggest that this abundance of material leads to the existence of infinite choice for consumers, a concept that Anderson suggests will change our capitalist economy “from the science of scarcity to the science of abundancy.”(Keen, 29) What Keen fears from this abundance is the lack of quality in what one can find on the Web 2.0. Keen fears an “undermining of truth” which he suggests leads to “stifling creativity” (Keen, 17). “The line between fact and fiction is blurred” and the Web 2.0 gave birth to this injustice. This “flattening of culture” has allowed for individual creativity and thought to deplete dramatically as we no longer demand truth and reputation, which Keen Illustrates in his comparison of Wikipedia.com-information written by the amateurs-to britanica.com-information written by paid experts who have mastered a particular field of study. A flattened culture seems to be one that no longer respects the minds that think outside the box, like Einstein and Marie Curie as Keen references. This flattened culture will accept the “’wisdom’ of the crowd” as a thoughtful consensus of invalid and non-referenced information free of charge without ever referencing the edited, fact-checked, Nobel Prize winning scholarly journals that can be referenced for a nominal fee. A flattened culture, and Keen’s fear of it, lies in the culture’s lack of value in the pursuit of truth and expertise and our acceptance of the amateur’s clever summaries.

Erica said...

I think that when Keen uses the phrase "flattening of our culture" he means it is leveling off. This is happening due to the "YOU" centered internet. information comes not from experts anymore but from us - our limited knowledge of random things. with people informing people - rather than experts informing people - we are all on the same level. In the book Keen says that a wise mans input is no more valued than a fools. there is no value to knowledge or truth. truth becomes hearsay and is rarely backed up by fact, only by opinion (and that opinion is based on someone else's opinion etc, etc.)

Lisa Burdzy said...

Andrew Keen's phrase the "flattening of our culutre" refers to how the Internet or WEB 2.0 is attempting to "democratize" the media by expanding user-based content. This is eveident in the growth of blogs, Wikipedia, Youtube, myspace etc. Keen expalains that although user based content has good intentions for people, it is more often misused by people with hidden agendas. For example, Keen states that this type of media "is vulnerable to untrustworthy content of every stripe- whether from duplicitous PR companies, multinational corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald's, anonymous bloggers, or sexual predators" (Keen 19). These sources are able to use the user based media to manipulate people to do what they want or think what they want them to think.

Not to mention that users are persuaded by the information they are receiving on these blogs or on Wikipedia as actual academic sources. Everyone has equal opportunity to participate on Wikipedia or in blogs, so people are generally unable to tell whether or not an expert on the subject is giving information, or if an average person with no exceptional knowledge is giving the information. This flow of information is potnentially dangerous to our intelligence and is definitely contributing to the "flattening of our culture."

EHolahan said...

When Keen uses the phrase "flattening of our culture" I think he is referring to the power of the internet and how it has the ability to blur the divide between truth and fiction. He writes, "One person's truth becomes as true as anyone else's. Today's media is shattering the world into a billion personalized truths, each seemingly equally valid and worthwhile. When he uses that phrase I think he talking about how in today's internet frenzied world anyone can write something to the web and declare it to be in truth when it is really far from it. While we would hope that every factual source on the internet is written by experts in that subject it really could just be written by your average joe who wishes to express his views on the subject. The problem with the internet is there is nothing stopping that average joe from writing these thoughts and disguising it as truthful.

Nicole99 said...

When Andrew Keen uses the term " flattening of our culture" it seems as he is mainly focusing on the term Web 2.0. We have become a society in which so many of our ideas are backed up by what we read/ learn from the internet. Through the chapters he constantly is refering back to the popularity of Wikipedia. When i read the fact that stated that Wikipedia is ranked the third most trafficked site on the internet and Brittanica.com is ranked in the five thousands i was in shock. To think that we would rather trust a site based on people like ourselves putting out information rather then experts whos job is to locate and post information is absolutely crazy, but yet i still do it. Its like all the credibilty in the world is constantly at question because some way or another information to back up things has probably come from the internet. I know when i use any site on the internet i am always questioning where it came from and how much i can truely rely on the site, but yet again i still do it. theres no escape from it all. Technology has taken over our lives and the availabilty is just so easy. We are so far into this technology revolution that no matter how in depth people like postman or Andrew Keen analyze all of this is is probably not going to change. We are going to continue to spread less credible information until all of it is slightly tweaked truths.

kevin.bell said...

Keen’s comment about “a flattening of our culture” refers to the teens, pre-teens, post-teens, and even fake teens that carelessly use Wikipedia, MySpace, and YouTube to broadcast their uneducated opinions. A prime example was found in March of 2007 by The New Yorker when it was discovered that thousands of Wikipedia articles have been edited by a High School graduate posing as a Harvard professor. This type of electronic behavior is exactly what Keen warns everyone about. That is why in February 2007 the Middlebury College history department banned students from citing Wikipedia as a source for research paper, a decision that should be made by every accredited institution across the country. It used to take years of training, education, and experience to build up credentials in order to be listened to and taken seriously. Today, that can be accomplished in one afternoon by anyone sitting in their pajamas in front of a computer. These amateur journal entries, blogs, photos, movies, and movie reviews are taking away not only from our availability of educated resources but from the professional job front as well. Every amateur produced, edited, and advertised product is stealing jobs from underneath the educated person who put in the time to become an expert in that field. Keen says it the best, “Amateur hour has arrived, and the audience is now running the show.”

Julie said...

First, I have to say that I've really enjoyed this book so far and I think that it expresses a lot of ideas which us, as Communication majors are forced to come to terms with in most of our classes because the media has kind of spiraled out of control and it's become increasingly more difficult to distinguish between what is real and trustworthy on the internet especially.
The "flattening of our culture" refers to the idea that the information which we obtain through education, personal experience, observation etc. is assumed to be just as relevant when compared to someone who has obtained information through websites like wikipedia or other sites that promote information for the people by the people. We are living in an age where there are few, if any, scholars to look up to because all we have to do is type in our query in a search engine and we get an answer. We assume as consumers that the answers we're getting are legitimate but how can we be sure? This thought obviously scares Keen as it does many people who have sat back and observed the drastic changes the internet has had on our society. We no longer appreciate the time and effort it can take for someone to become an expert on a topic and have relevant information (referred to in the book when Keen describes Dr. William Connolley, a global warming expert, being publicly refuted on wikipedia when he called them out on posting incorrect information). It scares him because if our culture is flat, that means it cannot progress. It is scary to think that this is the peak level of receiving information, and that is how it will stay. How can we ever learn as people if we are just accepting an inexperienced person's opinion on a subject?

Melissa said...

Keen’s idea of ”a flattening of our culture” is referring to the way technology has been effecting our everyday lives and the media. Web 2.0, more specifically YouTube, Myspace, and Wikipedia have enabled the every day person, the amateur, to share their ideas to the world as facts. I think what scares him and myself the most is the mindset that people like Kevin Kelly have and his idea of ”liquidating the library”. People are willing to sacrifice history and classics in order to have everything readily available and just a click away. This library that Kelly proposes will take away the idea of critical analysis. You will not have to read a few great works of literature in order to connect them, you can connect them by clicking a mouse. It seems to me, that if Kelly does this, he will bring us closer to ‘Idiocracy‘ and enable people to use their minds less.

Keen’s idea of the internet, like Postman‘s relationship to the television, can be used to benefit the greater good of cultures. But, when people are able to advertise themselves and their ideas as superior to others, things get a little washy. The fact that Wikipedia which is edited constantly by the common amateur, adding information that they think is correct, is being used more than Britannica which is written and edited by experts is certainly a scary concept.

Keen discusses the breakdown of independent and corporate music stores, and I have to wonder, when our culture will flatten itself to the point that there are little to no stores. Will eventually everything be sold on the internet and social interactions at the store will no longer be possible?

kim plummer said...

When Andrew Keen talks about the flattening of the culture, I believe he means that the internet affords the audience and the author to become the same thing. It scares him because it demotes the values of education; the internet allows us to stray from our reliance of expertise, experience and mastery in a given field as he describes it.
Like Keen describes, instead of buying a CD or looking up reliable information in an encyclopedia, we stream music off of MySpace or we cite Wikipedia as valuable source of information. (Even as I type, Microsoft Word corrects my spelling of Wikipedia, which is kind of weird…)
Keen finds this flattening of culture to be particularly frightening because the web entitles everyone to an equal voice, as he says “the words of the wise man count for no more than the mutterings of a fool.” As more content is continuously dumped onto the internet it is increasingly difficult to decipher the good from the bad, or more importantly the true from the false.
I think the biggest problem the internet affords is anonymity. Keen touches upon this idea, too. It provides people to post seemingly truthful information without revealing who they are. This is scary because part of receiving information is believing that the bearer of information is a credible and unbiased source, but the anonymity provided by the internet makes this problem a huge one. As we discussed with Postman’s book, most people are willing to accept what technology feeds them. So most Americans probably don’t even get to ask the question of, “Who is giving me my news?” and accept what they read on blogs or view on YouTube as fact without wondering about the other side of the story.

Bryan said...

I believe Andrew Keen uses the phrase "a flattening of our culture" to describe the diminishing spectrum between objective professional journalists (or experts in other fields) and amateurs like us posting information on the Internet. There is no hierarchy of qualification. When it comes to the Internet and Keen's "Web 2.0 world" as he describes it, everyone is on the same level. Keen says that "in a world with fewer and fewer professional editors or reviewers, how are we to know what and whom to believe?" Kids can't tell the difference between credible news and something they read off of a blog, and this scares Keen. He has come to accept the fact that my generation controls the Information Age. He's just worried with what we will do with it. His distrust with our generation lies in the fact that we seek out Wikipedia for the answers to many of our questions. Wikipedia, a site that is edited daily by amateurs. Keen is nervous that we will not be able to find true talent, someone who can generate any kind of real perspective, in this mass field of amateurs in "Web 2.0." For now, "everyone has an equal voice and the words of the wise man count for now more than the mutterings of a fool."

Eloise said...

In Cult of the Amateur Andrew Keen talks about how our Web 2.0 world is “flattening our culture”. What he describes in the book is that the “professional is being replaced by the amateur”. Anyone can be part of a website that is considered informative, such sites as Wikipedia. Unaccredited anonymous writers are contributing to worldwide spread of “knowledge”. Wikipedia is considered a free encyclopedia yet when a person of my generation thinks of an encyclopedia we give trust in that the text is accurate and is written by people who know more about the subject matter than I do. If I knew about the subject as an expert, why would I be looking it up in the first place?

What Keen is afraid of is that the knowledge of the internet and of websites that are considered informative are websites that obtain no REAL knowledge at all. “In the world where there are all amateurs there are no experts” and “It’s not exactly expert knowledge it is common knowledge.” What is the scary part is that people are being misinformed and misguided when going to websites like Wikipedia because there should be professionalism and expertise when writing an article. Not anyone can be a journalist you have to go to school and be trained in Journalism, not everyone can become a doctor if you did not go to medical school. You have to be trained and well educated to be given a right to be any professional, therefore how can any and every one be a writer and editor of an “encyclopedia”? If the world becomes filled up with all “common knowledge” there will be no experts, genius and no enlightenment of any subject, education is as good as what I and only I know.

Eloise said...

In Cult of the Amateur Andrew Keen talks about how our Web 2.0 world is “flattening our culture”. What he describes in the book is that the “professional is being replaced by the amateur”. Anyone can be part of a website that is considered informative, such sites as Wikipedia. Unaccredited anonymous writers are contributing to worldwide spread of “knowledge”. Wikipedia is considered a free encyclopedia yet when a person of my generation thinks of an encyclopedia we give trust in that the text is accurate and is written by people who know more about the subject matter than I do. If I knew about the subject as an expert, why would I be looking it up in the first place?

What Keen is afraid of is that the knowledge of the internet and of websites that are considered informative are websites that obtain no REAL knowledge at all. “In the world where there are all amateurs there are no experts” and “It’s not exactly expert knowledge it is common knowledge.” What is the scary part is that people are being misinformed and misguided when going to websites like Wikipedia because there should be professionalism and expertise when writing an article. Not anyone can be a journalist you have to go to school and be trained in Journalism, not everyone can become a doctor if you did not go to medical school. You have to be trained and well educated to be given a right to be any professional, therefore how can any and every one be a writer and editor of an “encyclopedia”? If the world becomes filled up with all “common knowledge” there will be no experts, genius and no enlightenment of any subject, education is as good as what I and only I know.

Elizabeth Gross said...

When the majority of information we acquire through the internet is from amateur sources such as blogs or encyclopedias not created by experts, our education is surface based and not detailed, thereby creating a flattening of our culture. In the Web 2.0 world, or a world where the majority of internet is infiltrated with amateur knowledge, there is a very real threat that readers will take in any information as truth, even if this information is unchecked by editors.
Although I can see Keen's point, I had a professor who is an editor for Wikipedia. She routinely checks information on the website that is designated as her territory and is able to edit the material if it is false. So there are editors of this material-- but there is still a problem in the threat of those seconds between the posting of wrong information and the editing of that information where many can still acquire wrong information.
Keen seems to fear, much like Postman did, the destruction of our a credited and detailed history which might die in the hands of citizens unconcerned with the fact and detail of material as much as the opinions and entertainment it produces.