[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”Xw8ARjhG6mdZqCIxpK59cJwcBfxfFyJo”]
WHAT happens when we tear up the past, replace people with bots and culture with content? Those are some of the question on the mind of former New Republic literary editor Leon Wieseltier in his piece “Among the Disrupted.”
He begins this way:
Amid the bacchanal of disruption, let us pause to honor the disrupted. The streets of American cities are haunted by the ghosts of bookstores and record stores, which have been destroyed by the greatest thugs in the history of the culture industry. Writers hover between a decent poverty and an indecent one; they
are expected to render the fruits of their labors for little and even for nothing, and all the miracles of electronic dissemination somehow do not suffice for compensation, either of the fiscal or the spiritual kind. Everybody talks frantically about media, a second-order subject if ever there was one, as content disappears into “content.” What does the understanding of media contribute to the understanding of life? Journalistic institutions slowly transform themselves into silent sweatshops in which words cannot wait for thoughts, and first responses are promoted into best responses, and patience is a professional liability.
This story, from today’s New York Times Book Review, has been floating around for a couple weeks now; in part because I’m a member of the tribe of the disrupted, I’ve been sent it about a dozen times.
I’ve not posted it yet, because I’ve been busy launching my book and leaving for a tour around Culture Crash. But the essay isn’t going away. It’s helping clarify our situation for some people.
The big challenge is for the “tribe of the disrupted” to make differentiated arguments that separate the good from the bad practices in our digital world. Average “media consumers,” for a lack of a better term, are very happy to have all this free content on the web (such as what you ironically provide on this blog,) and they aren’t particularly concerned about who writes it since there’s lots of good stuff outside the mainstream publications.
And look at Fox News. Quality isn’t a really big issue for the common folk anyway — to say nothing of the standards too often found in a journalistic world more and more forced to make the bottom line its only criteria. The Internet is both the problem and the savior.
Another problem is that more sophisticated Internet users recognize that circumventing the establishment has allowed entirely new, important, previously unheard voices to reach the public. Without the Internet, I would never have been able to write and distribute articles that brought women in the Vienna Philharmonic. Malcolm Gladwell would never have been able to read my 21 page article (with 89 footnotes from legal documents) about my wife’s experiences with egregious gender discrimination in the Munich Philharmonic and use the material in his book “Blink” which was on the NYT Bestseller list for 18 weeks.
So there are big ironies here that need to be resolved. We see how these new mediums allow marginalized authors, such as yourself, to widely promote their books to very targeted audiences. And yet we complain about the Internet. How do we resolve these contradictions? Wen it comes to the Net, how do we eliminate the destructive and promote the beneficial?
Using a lot of petroleum to haul around inscriptions on thinly pressed organic matter is closer to the ancient Egyptian world of papyrus and donkeys than it is to today’s methods of distribution that are here to stay, and which will only become even more hegemonistic. We should be very aware of this, and the very real pain it is causing the privileged creative classes. And yet we also have to look to the future. We must find solutions for the problems the digital world is creating while preserving the new opportunities they provide.
It’s so difficult to critically examine in good conscience the concepts Scott presents , because the moment you do, it seems yet another ridiculous article appears that attempts to simply deny or discount the social issues he addresses.
One is an article in “Governing” magazine (currently listed on AJ) that denies gentrification exists. It’s claims are so absurd I became curious and read about the publication. It is owned by e.Republic whose management is dominated by Scientologists. New hires at e.Republic are even given a copy of Speaking From Experience, a management training book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. This doesn’t add to the magazine’s credibility.
So how do we critically examine the issues of Culture Crash without our thoughts being exploited by the plutocratic elements of society?
I read Blink and remember the trombone controversy in the Munich Philharmonic.
The internet is a tool, like a hammer, that can be used for good or ill. I talked to a DJ who at one time was popular and was flying around to parties in other countries to do his profession. This was in the early 2000’s. He told me it petered out after awhile; he said “the internet made me, and the internet broke me.”
Some thoughts for the short term:
As for a pragmatic response for artists in this situation, I recommend the blog of sculptor Mark Edwards Adams. He finished his training ad began to produce work right around the time of the economic collapse in 2008. Instead of bemoaning his fate, he accepted the cards he was dealt and is now successful. He even specifically stated in one of his blogs that he was glad it played out this way because he was forced to learn things he never would have learned during economic prosperity. This issue of general economic hard times overlaps with the issue of internet disruption, and he has some very practical advice for all artists in the present situation.
And I think that Gladwell’s latest book, “David and Goliath” has some observations that are helpful in showing people how to think creatively and turn liabilities into assets.