The rise of the amateur professionals

But is this trend really a bad thing? So much of the artistic world -- photography, music, television, writing, food, etc. -- has traditionally been the domain of critics and other gatekeepers who hardly ever chose who met success based on the true quality of their work, but instead did so using arbitrary criteria not entirely divorced from their own self-interests.

Those who think that somehow the public has 'lost their standards', that anyone who succeeds outside of the 'conventional' models is not deserving of that success is a little more than a pickled dinosaur, stuffed with sour-grapes -- now there's a dish for you -- and will soon find themselves consigned to the rubbish-pile of history along with all those professions that have cruised through life trading in 'arcane secrets' that would scarcely fill up a pamphlet on time-shares.

The truth is, this is the age of the new renaissance, the second-enlightenment of the intelligent, diverse individual. Expensive, traditional modes of education, and the proliferation of trade 'specialisation' in an effort to balance society 'equitably' regardless of true skill or talent has been the order of the last hundred years, but the digital age is quickly putting an end to that failed experiment.

What does all of this mean? Does this mean a new hegemony? Will there eventually be a new divide, a gulf between the savvy and the savvy-less? Will those who continue to strive to try new things and learn new skills eventually become the new ruling elite?

Or, does it simply mean that people will be forced to lift their game?

The rise of the amateur professionals will inevitably lead to the death of mediocrity, but to spare yourself, you need only not be mediocre. Start learning.

Start now.