Amateur

in his post about fan fiction, David mentions 'amateur creativity'. In my comment to his post, I said that I felt that the term 'amateur' is problematic in this context. Just to unpack that a little more, I have always found the distinction between 'amateur' and 'professional' difficult in relation to writing because it implies that being paid for publication is what's important, whereas a publication fee is not a marker of quality or seriousness, simply an indication that someone sees the work as part of a viable business concern.

Interestingly, though, perhaps amateur will be revived in a more positive light via conversations like the one at Mary Hodder's Napsterization blog. Here's an excerpt:

Kevin suggests, in response to my earlier piece on the terminology of Users and Consumers,  that we instead bring back the original meaning of 'amateurs.'  Well, I love this:

We already have a word for people who create for the love of it, rather than being paid to, and it is 'amateurs'. As with many other pleasures, when we seek out opinions, we prefer those that flow from passion rather than from payment.

Now it may be argued that, given the decline in the teaching Latin and French, the loving root of 'amateur' is no longer perceived, so those who write pour l'amour ou pour le sport may see 'amateur' as a slight. In which case lets retranslate it to english and call it 'lovingly created media'.

Fantastic. Because it means we take back from the concept of 'professionals' the notion that 'good = professional." Instead we claim the aspects of our experience through creation that are so humanly, actively ours to own and enjoy, as unpaid creators. 'Amateur' has been derogatorily used to convey 'less than' status. Sometimes one or another works is less than, but it is not due to whether or not someone is paid for their work. A work should be judged lesser or greater because of its intrinsic qualities and value to those who apprehend it.

So, take the label 'amateur creator' as a point of pride.  It means you create for love, and not for money.

read the rest

This excerpt is part of a larger discussion about the terminologies of users and consumers. Mary Hodder is a graduate student at UC Berkeley, and I like her work at Napsterization. She conducts some fascinating research and reports on it intelligently, carefully, and without hype.

Anyway, my point re 'amateur writers' is that the opportunities of internet have begun to alter, in a positive way, the value we ascribe to writing that is not paid for.

(Nicholas Carr also discusses amateurism in some depth, see my recent post  on the changing economics of creative work)

Comments

[Simon mills]

Hi Sue

You may recall I addressed this issue of amateurism at the last Incubation in regard to Internet Art. I followed a line of argument originally presented by Sean Cubitt regarding photography where he talks about it becoming a pubic art:

" . . . in which the private is dissolved, as it is in any case in the surveillance society, and the intimate and unconscious are leaking into the light; a public art which is more than the artist making their work public, or building works in public spaces, or directing the work of members of the public, but rather an art by, for, in the public sphere, art by virtue not of the success with which it moves expression from sender to receiver, but by virtue of how many people it inspires to communicate, and with what breadth and depth.”

This paragraph speaks to me of blogs and open source software, collaborative writing projects and game modifications in short of grassroots communications networks.

Nicolas Bourriaud writes in his book Relational Aesthetics:

“…the role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realities, but to actually be ways of living and models of action within the existing real, whatever the scale chosen by the artist”

What is critical or creative Internet Culture if not a precise attempt to interrogate our current way of living actually within the new spaces of communication where so much of our daily interactions take place?

In this sense internet art resists incorporation into the gallery space but has to exist alongside, or as part of, what it is investigating and subsequently, in that moment, the distinction between amateur and professional can be dissolved.

best

Simon

[Simon mills]

I was intersted by the definition of Napsterization: the disintermediation by new technologies and digital media of old economy, incumbent institutions and analog frameworks.

Isn't this just Convergence by another name?

[Nick Hine]

I was thinking about this recently in terms of the "cost" of participation. Clearly a dimension of amateur is what people produce with "home" tools. The difference between using iMovie instead of Final Cut Pro. People expressing themselves, and learning new ways to do that. I am not even sure this is necessarily radically political. It's another (and new) opportunity for communication and self expression, perhaps for personal satisfaction or perhaps to build a memory. Amateur in the sense of untrained. But certainly worthwhile and at times beautiful.

[Alan Drury]

I find the idea that professional writers have no passion about what they're doing because they're being paid for it insulting. I wouldn't have written over 50 plays over 35 years if I didn't care about what I was doing.

It's like saying academics don't care about their subject because it's how they earn their living.

(There's an easy, cheap jibe there, but I can't be bothered).

The distinction is not between who's being paid and who's not, but who's committed to writing and who's not. You don't get better as a writer unless you practice consistently. It's like playing the piano or football.

The give away comment is, 'I've got a really good idea for a novel, but I haven't got the time'. I've got nothing against people dabbling, (I dabble in other things myself), and very occasionally they come up with something good, but that's what they are, dabblers.

Do I feel better now? No.