A Stitch in Haste

Fill in the blanks:

The most bizarre, yet most common, criticism of just about any kind of ___ these days seems to be the fact that a lot of it sucks. That's really not debatable by itself -- but it's not the point either. Sure, a lot of ___ sucks, but there's an awful lot that's quite good as well. In fact, what's cool about ___ is that what sucks and what's good really depends on the audience. So what sucks for me might be quite interesting and useful for you -- in which case, that's great for you and makes no difference for me. Thus, anyone complaining about some bad ___ as evidence that ___ has little to no value has pretty much missed the entire point of ___.

Regular readers of my blog would probably guess the missing word is "art."

But they'd be wrong:

The most bizarre, yet most common, criticism of just about any kind of user-generated content these days seems to be the fact that a lot of it sucks. That's really not debatable by itself -- but it's not the point either. Sure, a lot of it sucks, but there's an awful lot that's quite good as well. In fact, what's cool about user-generated content is that what sucks and what's good really depends on the audience. So what sucks for me might be quite interesting and useful for you -- in which case, that's great for you and makes no difference for me. Thus, anyone complaining about some bad content as evidence that user-generated content has little to no value has pretty much missed the entire point of user-generated content.

However, at the other end of the spectrum, there seems to be this mythology that those who commission user-generated content are exploiting those users to create this type of content. That's equally ridiculous, as shown by a NY Times article highlighting just how expensive it is for companies creating user-generated advertising contests to have fans creates ads for them. Basically, those companies are discovering that it takes a lot of work to find anything decent, and it may be cheaper to just go the traditional route of hiring professionals to create your content for you.

Here's my point: Would anyone seriously suggest that the government should start awarding grants to YouTubers to subsidize their creation of "user-generated content" that may or may not be useful to a business (i.e., that may or may not suck)? Would anyone seriously suggest that YouTubers, especially those who suck, have a "right" to a taxpayer subsidy, so they can practice their craft without the burden of a day job?

No?

Then don't seriously suggest that the rules for "artists" should be any different.

The reason there are so many starving artists is because most artists suck. Those who don't don't need taxpayer subsidies; those who do don't deserve them.