Wired magazine has a piece on yet another trendy word construction made possible by the on-line world. Crowdsourcing includes any effort by a commercial enterprise to leverage the scattered talents of large groups of individuals on the web. Many firms are finding the technique extraordinarily powerful in building stock photo archives, writing or testing bits of computer code, handling evaluative tasks, or even solving complex problems in chemistry or science. Says the article:
Technological advances in everything from product design software to digital video cameras are breaking down the cost barriers that once separated amateurs from professionals. Hobbyists, part-timers, and dabblers suddenly have a market for their efforts, as smart companies in industries as disparate as pharmaceuticals and television discover ways to tap the latent talent of the crowd. The labor isn’t always free, but it costs a lot less than paying traditional employees. It’s not outsourcing; it’s crowdsourcing.
The trend is one more indication of the growing boundary blur between professionals and amateurs — covered before in this weblog as the ProAm revolution. In the arts, we’ve built a solid and sophisticated infrastructure around professional endeavor. The world around us — and the artists among us — are realizing that ”professional” isn’t always what they want, or what they need to make or experience exceptional work.
Also be sure to see Wired‘s suggestions for the five rules of the crowdsourcing labor pool. Most entertaining is number 4: ”The crowd produces mostly crap.”
I find Wired’s observation that crowds mostly produce crap an interesting observation, especially considering James Surowiecki’s book, “The Wisdom of Crowds.” Personally, I found Surowiecki’s observations and case very persuasive. Of course, we’re talking different processes here.
Terrific post, Andrew. Thanks as always.
Thanks Neill,
I wonder if there’s a distinction between the output of individuals, and the collective output of the crowd. A successful crowdsourcing effort will inevitably lead to lots and lots of poor or irrelevant stuff. But the patterns of that flow and the embedded gems within it provide a surprise and insight that wouldn’t happen with a smaller group.
I’d imagine that the blurring of the line between professional and amateur must be very threatening to some artists.
Maybe this is end of epoch and a cycling back to earlier era. I’m not an art historian but I’d guess that the concept of a professional artist/performer began to emerge during Italian Renaissance when painters began to receive commissions and the early operas were performed (feel free to correct me if I’m off on this one).
My point is that there was an age where the dichotomies that we take for granted did not exist – everybody was a performer and everybody was an audience member – more or less.
Andrew, I think that topic you raise is probably one of the most important ones for artists who are trying to figure out optimal way to embrace the Internet. A successful model would be one where artists spearhead participatory endeavors where Internet users are encouraged to contribute their own content based upon the creative output of an artist. Then the professional and amateur creations would reside side by side and, possibly, build upon each other.
Doug’s comment puts me in mind of the Yellow Arrow Project. The project’s website is down but here’s a link to an article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070102280.html It is (was?) participatory, public, artist-driven, allowed space for both professional and amateur contributions, and firmly rooted both in the real and virtual worlds, with both parts absolutely critical to the entire concept. I consider it the perfect public art project.