The internet has allowed artists a sort of utopic realm to showcase their work.
Jaron Lanier, let the creative class, who never elected you as spokesperson, represent themselves! You assume that all creative-types are looking for monetary gain (and if not, we are apparently hindering you in your conquest). This is both sickening and ignorant of artistic integrity.
While it is true that artists are looking for financial compensation for their physical craft (artists are doing their job after all), why does Jaron Lanier feel that it is preferable that users pay to access information? Let's ignore Lanier's technological determinism for a minute. Lanier feels as if we should bypass the artist and have software designers redesign the structure of the web itself. Why hide behind the pretense of claiming a better fate for artists? Lanier writes that:
To help writers and artists earn a living online, software engineers and Internet evangelists need to exercise the power they hold as designers. Information is free on the Internet because we created the system to be that way.
We could design information systems so that people can pay for content — so that anyone has the chance of becoming a widely read author and yet can also be paid. Information could be universally accessible but on an affordable instead of an absolutely free basis.
Jaron Lanier wants to revolutionize the Internet, paving the way to pay-for-content access. Yet he displays disdain at Sony's AIBO. Is he upset with Sony's lawsuits through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Or is he offended about the fun hacks that users spread online for free?
Who is Lanier kidding with his capitalistic rhetoric? For starters, Lanier seems to be lost in a dotcom Internet era state of idealism. The Internet is no longer a virtual marketplace but a forum of ideas, services, products, and more. Users can choose to buy goods online or can browse through a wide expanse of free information.
Reputation & Self-Marketing
New users publish content in order to feed into the idea of the reputation economy. I display my photography in galleries free-of-charge in order to establish myself as an artist.
Through this free promotion, I market myself to outside interest. My reputation grows, opening doors to new venues and creating potential networking opportunities. This proves to be more valuable in the long run as it potentially means a higher networth for myself. This method also includes anyone who wants to see my work and not just those who have the disposable income.
It's the same with publishing content online. Would I really close all these doors simply for the pursuit of a quicker buck? I wouldn't but Lanier tells me that I think I should.
"We owe it to ourselves and to our creative friends to acknowledge the negative results of our old idealism. We need to grow up."
Lanier, show your true colours. You aren't worried about us artists who are showcasing our work for free. You want to, once again, capitalize on the marketplace that you wish the Internet to be. Users are already fighting the encroachment of capitalism of virtual spaces. Are the high monthly fees and the annoyance of internet ads not enough for you as it is? Or should we create a virtual realm where only those with the monetary means can access information? (Will this information even be good? Or will be it the garbage that is generally produced?)
If that is our virtual future, then I say bring back the traveling bards of a previous era to restore a means of free information of the outside world.
No comments:
Post a Comment