The Sanctity of the Book

"The act of cutting and pasting and linking and annotating a text is as or more important than the writing of the book in the first place." So states Kevin Kelly (Senior Maverick at Wired magazine) as quoted in The Cult of the Amateur. Andrew Keen, the Cult's author, finds this observation absurd.

Keen rails against "a troubling new permissiveness" -- "the ease in which we can now cut and paste other people's work to make it appear as if it's ours." Keen stresses "the sanctity of the book" -- "a finished book is not a box of Legos to be recombined and reconstructed at whim."

On a musical note, Keen asks, "Can you imagine Bob Dylan releasing an interactive Blood on the Tracks that could be rearranged to sound like you?" He, furthermore, bemoans that "once all of these amateur remixes and mash-ups end up on YouTube... it is us who are faced with the task of sitting through millions of efforts to find the rare few that are worthwhile."

It's a problem. To continue in that musical vein, I can't even stand sampling. For me, there are few things more embarrassing than attempts by young Turks to update or "add to" a classic. The offspring is more despoliation/ desecration/defamation than homage. When my daughter listens to Fresh FM (105.9) on the radio, I bristle when Rihanna steals the synth line from "Tainted Love." Or the Plain White T's appropriate the melody for "1, 2, 3, 4" from, yep, Bob Dylan's "I Want You." (Ditto for movies -- I've never seen a remake that's better than the original.) I, too, wonder "Is nothing sacred?"

Everyone wants to make a mark, to have a personal imprint. To that end, it's fine to learn by sketching the masters. It's presumptuous to assume that you can dab, slap, or slather some paint on and improve a revelatory, time-tested piece. It's not only precocious but uninformed, misguided, even destructive. Like graffiti that sullies rather than honors what's already there. You want to shout, "That's not 'experimental,' 'artistic,' or 'inspired.' It's an abomination. For heaven's sake, make your own!" That's ownership.

You could argue that nothing is created ex nihilo -- we all borrow material from others, from the world at large. But when it's blatant, you have to credit (not discredit) the source. No matter how much Jane Average apes Jane Austen, the noodlings of the former don't match the novels of the latter.

No matter how you spin it, "cutting and pasting and linking and annotating" isn't the same as creating an original work (in comparison, it's more like a walk in the park). Because the original work has its own, incorruptible legitimacy. Because years of blood, sweat, and tears (not to mention a unique, enduring vision) likely went into that original work. Because the original work came first. Without it, you'd have nothing to cut, paste, link to, or annotate.

You can put the most powerful tools imaginable in the hands of amateurs and you won't change that fact.