Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Distribution channels (in my eyes) don't suddenly become "validated" when <famous person> makes use of it.. That's just falling into the trap the Culture Industry wants you to be trapped in. Twitter (something you seem to disapprove of), after all (iirc), became a "hit" when Ashton Kutcher visibly started using it; and yet at the same time you're saying that you will only accept these new distribution methods once famous persons "prove" their effectiveness and validity as a medium through adopting them. Do you see the irony here?  |
Firstly the 'Culture Industry' doesn't "want" anything - it doesn't have a mind, or a goal or an universal ethos. It's lazy to give a disparate collection of businesses and individuals a persona that conveniently suits your political beliefs.
I really don't think I ever said that famous people validate distribution channels. Nor do I disapprove of Twitter - as I said, I use it and integrate it with much of the other things I do online. What I did try to say was that suggestions that creative expression is moving on from traditional media such as long form books to things like Twitter are hopelessly optimistic. Twitter is a great social tool and there are some interesting experiments concerning creativity constrained by it's restrictions. However, as a 'new media' it is a novelty at best.
A new distribution method is validated once the 'novel' uses have become old hat and it is used as a regular conduit for sophisticated creative expression. In early computer graphics, there were hundreds of abstract films demonstrating 3D techniques. They had an audience because they were novel, and occasionally amusing. Creative expression was secondary. It was only when the medium itself stopped being the subject of those films that I'd regard it as being validated. See - no famous people involved there!