Cult of the Amateur

"Is the web killing our culture?" asks 37signals—a new book by Andrew Keen declares this to most definitely be the case, using the term "Cult of the Amateur" to describe the rise of the online superficial (which includes "bad art"—this discussion is certainly relevant to art and design). People are have a field day bashing Keen in the comments, and I think they are right to sneer at a generally elitist and outdated argument against new forms of communication and visibility.

But this brings me to the reality that, both online and off, our particular industry seems to brim with practitioners of every professional range. How many graphic designers can the world need?" asked Melena Ryzik (rather snidely, I thought) in a recent NYTimes article about the Renegade Craft Fair. Are the DIY designers who cobble together earnings from alt-freelance efforts really more amateur and less skilled than a corporate GD who pushes the company logo around the page? Who defines good and bad, who sets the boundaries for amateur and professional taste? Unlike writing, the communicative success of visual design is not so easily measured, and people respond to what they see from a much more emotional place, regardless of whether they understand the designer's intent. The root of this argument about the death of culture, about good and bad art, seems to be whether or not you respect the audience's ability to assign new meanings, define what they like and create their own response.

Pictured above: a still from a Modest Mouse fan video—37signals applauds these enthusiastic amateurs.