This conversation is closed.
To start with the assumption that all the many thousands of options available are equally valid, subject only to consumer choice, is deadly.
This talk never once mentions the two most important things in any debate about the arts: 1) what function does art serve? and 2) how can we tell the good stuff from the crap? In fact, Cameron operates on the unfounded assumption that the only values ascribable to art relate either to the market or to social services. At no point does he question the postmodern ideology that asserts all artistic objects to be of equal value-in-themselves.
It is vitally necessary now to question the role art plays in human life, for the simple reason that all those YouTube videos and amateur dances and instant concerts are not, necessarily, of any worth; nor are they, for that matter, necessarily art in even a broad sense. Why assume they are? Why be driven only by an economic/social idea of art as a commodity? This is a weak leftover of orthodox Marxism at its most absurd, seeing everything through economic lenses.
To see all created works of art as equal in nature and worth is to immediately banish everything outside the best-selling this or that to worthlessness. Sales become the measure of all judgement. And then to say that an artwork does something wonderful because it promotes some social agenda is nothing more or less than using art for propaganda. Gone, for Cameron, is art's worth as art - he doesn't even pose the question of what art's value is! This is thin intellectual work without any clear philosophical basis. And this approach is damaging.