Web 2.0: good for the arts, good for journalism

Many good points here, but I'm more with Joe than Mike on blogs and the Internet. True, economic and reputation models are still being worked out; that will probably always be in flux. But don't underestimate the power of the gift economy, as Bridgette recently alluded to. I believe that if you provide compelling content, and you will be found. My prime example is Ed Winkleman's arts blog (sorry, it's from New York, but Ed's sidebar points to quite a few blogs that aren't, including the modest group blog I'm associated with.) People work for their passions, as well as for money. We're not all blockheads.

"We have higher expectations than ever from the media we're willing to pay for: It must inform us and enlighten us about things we don't understand or simply don't know."

But "we" expect to get it for free; that's the crux of the crisis in journalism brought on by the gravitation of eyeballs and advertisers to the Internet. I'm amused by our millennial era's propensity to throw out cold, hard economic and political reality on wisps of evidence.

The early 1990s brought us "The End of History" thanks to the U.S. winning the cold war; seems to me we still have all the history-in-the-making we can handle.

The late 1990s brought us "The End of the Business Cycle," thanks to the fact that the tech sector was booming. That tune changed after mid-2000.

The Internet as cultural savior? Perhaps. But just because you build a highway doesn't mean it will be full of cultural traffic if the horses aren't fed and the internal combustion engines can't combust.

And who are those horses, and what are those engines? Some natural human drive to expression-no-matter-what that's now been freed to soar in the anti-gravity of cyberspace? Sorry, but on an ongoing, sustainable basis, nobody produces culture or becomes culture's journalistic handmaiden without cash support and cash incentives (a trust fund might be a passable substitute).

I think it takes a leap of faith, given current conditions, to see the Internet magically becoming a vacuum cleaner sucking in cash for culture that's high, middle-brow or avant-garde.

Lighter amusements? Different story. As far as journalism is concerned, the Internet's impact so far has been an economic disaster, with arts journalism bearing a disproportionate share of raging cutbacks. Lacking a new economic model that pays those who report, write and edit, you'll see a dwindling of good information.

Yes, the Internet is a godsend for spreading the word about cultural developments, but first you need a word to spread. For culture to bubble along briskly requires an infrastructure of arts and journalistic institutions that will house the art and generate the word about it.

Remember, each Victorian piano in a parlor meant a nickel in the pocket of the content provider: Stephen Foster, Gilbert & Sullivan, et. al., who had a reliable way to convert the medium into a paycheck, via the sale of sheet music.

So, barring considerable evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe, and, as long as they'll let me, literally live by the words of that grandaddy of all bloggers, Samuel Johnson: "Only a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

An intelligent counter-balancing argument!

One difficulty I see is that institutional change is lagging way behind technological change. For example, there doesn't seem to be any reliable economic model for supporting quality journalism. We writers don't like to look at the business side of things, but it is in the economic sphere that a real revolution has to take place -- unless we all want to work at this as a hobby.

Another example of institutional lag has to do with the law. A judge in Peoria recently refused a blogger (and former writer for my newspaper)admittance to a juvenile court hearing on the grounds that bloggers aren't "real journalists." Clearly, this is backwards thinking. But just as clearly, the whole concept of who is a journalist needs to be redefined (and is being redefined).

Which brings me to your point, Joe, about quality and professionalism. The old controversy about whether journalism is a profession has returned and with good reason: Only quality and professionalism are going to distinguish themselves in an era when anyone can publish anything.

On a final note, when trying to grasp the big picture, my feelings see-saw. On the one hand, I think we may be on the verge of a new Renaissance, since so many diverse cultures are mixing in ways they haven't before. Also, mastering this new world requires interdisciplinary, creative thinking. Walking in lockstep with others isn't going to cut it.

On the other hand, the decline of reading documented by the NEA and the low quality of public education is disquieting. I suppose our brave new future is still going to require many people who flip burgers.

"Fart jokes, it turns out, have broader cultural impact than the Piss Christ."

This is a brilliant sentence and bears considerable reflection! Human things that happen to us all can be shared. "Concepts" that are mostly attacks on something ancient go over the heads of the many.

Also, I really like the idea that the piano was the computer of its time. After I've been typing all day, I often dream of playing the piano -- keyboards both.

But we have NOT heard from everyone yet!

Many people around here, some of them with fabulous stories and ideas, either can't afford a computer or figure out how to operate one. And what do you think will happen when those $100 green crank computers hit Africa? What will we hear THEN? Will it be like the little sample of music composed on it that Here-Now played today? Hiccups and giggles and toodling? Human as farts?