Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Post 3: mass amateurization




Clay Shirky defines mass amateurization as “a result of the radical spread of expressive capabilities…” This means that a huge number of people are doing it as their hobby, in this case, publishing. Being an amateur doesn’t mean that they are necessarily bad at it or not talented enough, it just means that they are doing something that they wanted to do and is not motivated by money. Shirky believes that the first mass amateurization occurred when the printing press was invented; it was the time when reading and writing became important, and scribe was no longer a profession because more and more general publics can read and write.


I love writing Chinese poems. I write poems about what things I see daily and just about anything that comes to my mind. Before using facebook, I’d just save them in document files and look at them once awhile. However, ever since I started using facebook, I’d share them by posting them as my status or publish them as a note. Some people make comments about my works, sometimes they'll “like” it, etc; it’s all good to me since that’s just my hobby and I just really feel like sharing them. Though my poems aren’t the most poetic work in the world, and I’m not a well-trained professional poet or publisher; facebook and the internet still made it possible for people like me to publish without hassle.


The outcome of mass amateurization is profound. Now anyone who has news to publish simply needs a connection to the Internet, unlike the old days, where news are picked to be news by the “professional editors” with their professional bias. This allows people to access the news easily through some clicks of the mouse and Google. Everyone is now a media outlet.


However, mass amateurization also has its flaws too. Recently BBC put up an article about how people who use Internet Explorer tend to have lower IQ compare to those who use Firefox, and Chrome. Sources are from a Canadian firm called ApTiquant which was “only recently set up and staff images were copied from a legitimate business in Paris” (BBC News, 3 August 2011). This was now proven to be bogus, and BBC published another article to claim it. But it was still amazing how famous and notable news publishers like BBC, CNN, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and Forbes could be so careless that they just publish things without confirming it.


The future of the media professional is not too bright. Nowadays everyone who has a camera, a device that connects to internet can be a publisher. The need for media professional to publish news is less vital comparing to the old days. On the other hand, the authority of the media professionals is now questionable given what they’ve claimed about Internet Explorer users having low IQ. So the media professional will probably fade out just like the scribes in the late 1400’s because they are replaceable now.




References:

Shirky, Clay. "Everyone Is a Media Outlet." Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. 55-80. Print.

BBC News:

1 comment:

  1. In your post you mentioned that "being an amateur doesn’t mean that they are necessarily bad at it or not talented enough, it just means that they are doing something that they wanted to do and is not motivated by money." Even though amateurs are not specialists in their line of work, the task that they perform at an amateur level can still be a great source of income for some individuals. I personally love watching youtube videos, and have learned that many youtubers have become youtube partners, and have dedicated their livelihood to making videos. Some of those individuals also sell products (like albums and shirts) to their fan-base. In these instances, amateurs are motivated by financial gains.

    In your last paragraph you stated your belief that media professionals are replaceable and will fade out like scribes did hundreds of years ago. The task of scribes was to write religious text verbatim-- they did not have to create their own stories or even develop their own ideas. Even though scribes are no longer present, distinctions are still made for calligraphers, who have the professional ability to write in a decorative way. The journalists and photographers of today are not equivalent to the scribes of hundreds of years ago. Although scribes were professionals at writing, they only copied what was already written. They did not write new material. While scribes were replaced, it is unlikely (in my opinion) that the same will happen to today’s professionals.
    Good points!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.