You know you're outside the loop when ...

... when you find yourself agreeing (even in part) with something like this.

I stumbled across Keen's article via a blog I follow. That blogger filed it under "humour", and didn't even want to start to prepare a serious response. But there can certainly be something disconcerting in clicking over to an article at which someone has just poked serious fun, and finding yourself agreeing with more than a couple of the points being made. After all, what I like about Web 2.0 is the participatory zeitgeist, the suggestion that the web isn't only for a privileged few, but really is for the rest of us (or even for all of us).

And yet, we perhaps shouldn't be too quick to dismiss Keen's arguments. He tells us that

Instead of Mozart, Van Gogh, or Hitchcock, all we get with the Web 2.0 revolution is more of ourselves.

Is this what I want? A reduction of high art to the level of finger painting? Of course we should be asking if this is really the case, if Web 2.0 must inevitably lead to mediocrity. Keen writes

The purpose of our media and culture industries — beyond the obvious need to make money and entertain people — is to discover, nurture, and reward elite talent.

which, from my perspective on those industries, without any connection to Web 2.0, or 1.0 for that matter, is certainly not a purpose that's being realized.

Go to: Nothing new under the sun, or
Go to: Perhaps better never than late, or
Go to: It's just too Oh!