Going back to IP's question, I don't think it's an "or". I think the bar can be raised, with higher quality work being created, while at the same time the public gives less value to that work.
First, the bar raising: I do think that the bar is being continuously raised for digital content creation, but I find it interesting that at the same time we see a huge amount of crap. I think a chart plotting this over time would look like a pyramid rising out of the ground, with those few at the top being pushed to create even better work, but as they rise more and more people rush in at the bottom creating mediocre to poor work. But these people at the bottom are pushing up the intermediate, and the intermediate are pushing up the best.
As for value, I sort of hate to bring money into this, because there are many ways to value work besides money, but I think we have to consider it because that's how our economy assigns value. When a painter is able to support himself by selling paintings, essentially society is saying "we think the work you do (painting) is valuable enough that you can do this full time as your contribution to society" or "because you made that painting you get a roof over your head and food to eat." I know that's simplistic, but I think that's a useful lens look at this through. So if I look at Mr-914's examples:
ip_wirelessly wrote:I'm thinking of Pretty Lights (torrents their own MP3s into a good live career), Kirby Ferguson (documentarian, as we've discussed elsewhere), Marc Maron (started a comedy podcast that has driven traffic to his live shows)
... two out of the three require them to do work in the "real" world in order to support themselves. And it looks like Kirby Ferguson also augments his income from donations with real world presentations. I know you could say that it is both the digital and real world work that they get paid for when they get paid in the real world, but without their real world work they aren't getting paid (or are paid much less).
I know there are examples of those who've made it through only digital means, and I think there are more examples every day. The first example that comes to mind is anyone who's created a popular enough YouTube video to earn some of the ad revenue. I think it's worth noting in that case that they still had to use a well established publisher who essentially monopolizes the distribution of that content (sharing involves links back to YouTube, instead of direct sharing of the content), much like traditional media. The second is musicians who've sold music digitally, but that's a bit of an oddball since the content is generally meant to be consumed offline.
Overall though, I think as a society we are still bad at giving monetary value to digital creation. Lots of "likes" and shares certainly are legitimate ways for people to say something has value, but nothing says that quite like "because you made this I'll give you money so you can eat."
