First, thanks for all of the emails I have gotten about thoughts/information about Web 2.0. I am preparing for a panel for Silverdocs and have used this as an opportunity to learn more about the web and the jargon … I mean, the language … created around the new platforms that exist. Getting up to speed on this has taught me that I knew a lot more than I thought. I was a bit nervous because although I have a personal blog and am a pretty internet savvy person, I was not sure that I was ready to speak publicly about these things. Also, I was unsure how to discuss Arts Engine’s role in the whole 2.0 revolution.

I have a much better grasp on the whole thing and will not give up too many of the things I have learned because, well, let’s save the five minutes of information I have for the Silverdocs audience members. I will pass along the definition of web 2.0 because many of my friends have emailed me and said that though they would like to help me in my quest for more information, they have no clue what the heck web 2.0 is. This article gives as a great definition and has some great diagrams. An easy analogy is that web 1.0 is the Encyclopedia Britannica and web 2.0 is wikipedia. Wikipedia allows anyone and everyone to update information. Encyclopedia Britannica simply provides information. A true oversimplification is that, for the reader, web 1.0 is more passive and web 2.0 is more active.

A few days ago, The Brian Lehrer Show featured Andrew Keen, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has written a new book, The Cult of the Amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. Keen believes that blogs, wikis and other web 2.0 phenomena cause a great deal of harm. Listening to him on the show, I was surprised at how pedestrian his arguments were. Haven’t we heard these arguments a hundred times:
• Bloggers aren’t “real” journalists.
• Filmmakers on YouTube are not “real” filmmakers.
• Wikis like wikipedia spread misinformation.

Maybe it was Keen’s glib tone but I thought that he would inspire some new debate.

When Lehrer spoke about some blogs that are deemed “legitimate”, written by living and breathing journalists, he referred to The Huffington Post. Keen then, completely contradicted himself and said that HuffPo is different. It functions more as an online newspaper than a blog because real journalists write it. So if “respected people” write online their work is called online newspapers but the college student, because he or she is an unknown entity, writes on this sub par format known as a blog. This is just more elitist jargon. Writing about what you had for breakfast may not necessarily be news but if there is an audience for it, I argue that maybe it is. I know people would read about what George Clooney had for breakfast if he had a blog. (Is he an eggs and bacon man or a fruit and yogurt kind of guy? These are questions I want answers to. I won’t lie.)

As an entrepreneur, Keen did push the idea that many of the artists making videos on YouTube or the musicians putting their music on MySpace for free were not making smart financial decisions. Sure, their work was getting out there but they were making next to nothing financially. Plus (and this was implied) their work was not being seen in a platform that people necessarily respected. People tend to respect work that has to be vetted in some way.

As a filmmaker, I think about how I want to put my work out into the world. I have short films that I have made in film school and they are just sitting on my hard drive taking up space. At first, I did not put them up on YouTube because I want people to see them in a “proper” setting, in a film festival or on some distributors DVD that I can actually make some money off of. The problem with that idea is well, the films are too old to be in any more festivals and only a small handful of distributors take shorts (other than online ones which I have had varied success with). I can huff and puff about other filmmaker friends having their films in [insert fancy film festival here] or being distributed by [insert big name distributor here] but my films still remain on my hard drive.

I finally gave in a year ago and put my third year film school short on YouTube. After a year of doing absolutely nothing to drive traffic to it, 398 people have watched it. It’s not thousands but I could have 398 people watch my film or I could sit around and wait for some outside entity to legitimize my work. You be the judge. No I won’t get rich from this. But people outside of my inner circle will see my work. This can and has lead to success for other artists.

Again, these arguments are not new but because I was provoked to write such a long entry about it, it is clear that it is still a provocative subject. You can read more about Andrew Keen on, ironically, his blog.