I’ve been wrestling with my point of view in the ongoing discussions about new/social vs. old/legacy/traditional media.
On one hand, you could call me a new media keener. At least, among my colleagues in the newsroom and my cohort of friends, I’ve been an early adopter of tools like Flickr, Facebook, and Twitter.
On the other, I feel the need to defend the traditional media. Not just because it pays my bills. But because I think the things we can (but don’t always) do well have been unduly dismissed.
My thoughts sorted themselves out a bit tonight at the round table on new media organized by Kevin Grandia at Hoggan & Associates. (You can read some of the discussion captured on Raul‘s blog).
One key for me is separating the content from the platform.
If it’s in a gallery, it must be Art
The discussion brought back a fine arts lecture from university, about the construct of the art gallery.
The argument was that a painting or whatever becomes Art not because it’s a good painting, or a challenging painting, but because it is hanging in a big important room with white walls.
Essentially, the art is Art because the curator said so. (Even if it’s a signed urinal.)
The room or the painting?
You’ve probably guessed by now that the gallery is the traditional media outlet, and the painting is the actual content.
And is it, on some level, ridiculous that the room decides the art? Sure. Is all art in the room good, and all art out of the room bad? No.
Is there still good and bad art? Yes.
I’m a lot more interested in the painting than the room. And that’s where I like to see the new/old media argument headed — toward a discussion of the stories told and audience(s) served.
Kevin challenged the traditional media folks to identify something the new media can learn from us. So here goes: I say the old media is rich with expert storytellers, who have honed their craft by doing it every day. And the best know who they serve — the audience first.