The worst thing about 21st century internet culture? The fact that two generations of people have been conditioned to refer to everything they do as "content".
Are you a writer? An artist? A photographer? A film maker? A blogger? It no longer matters. You're a content creator and something something monetisation.
Creative professions are deeply undervalued. Artists, writers, and all kinds of creatives are underpaid. People shamelessly steal their work and treat it like a disposable commodity. People act as if it just magically appeared one day and don't bother to credit whoever made it.
Ironically, people everywhere keep trying to use that same work to make money, without having done any of the work themselves.
Our society dismisses creators while voraciously consuming the things they create.
@InvaderXan Why, when you create a hierarchy of labor based on money production and growth, something as wild, subjective and unstable as art can't be given a steady monteary value and therefore it can't be considered valuable >.>
@furkachi But it *is* considered valuable. So much so that many people consider even owning artwork to be a thing that only rich people do.
The problem is that, while the art itself is valued, the artists are not.
@InvaderXan @furkachi good point. People value the creation and not the creator, fight over who owns the creation and leave the creator out to starve. Again, a cultural shift is needed, to see the artist as the driving force behind the work, and appreciate their work, rather than commodifying the creation and valuing is for its resale price, which the artist never sees a penny of.
@WanderingBeekeeper @InvaderXan exactly; especially since while the result of the labor can be considered of extreme monetary value, the labor that creates the art is considered secondary (a "hobby labor", that is not worth monetization for its own sake, compared to more "professional labors", like management for instance).
Which, you know, is also made worse by the myth of the "sell out artist" that has reached enough monetary stability through their art that they *must* not be authentic
It should mean anyone who creates things in excessive amounts for the sole purpose of selling more so they can get money. Unfortunately, most people apparently take it to mean literally anyone who has managed to achieve any level of success.
@InvaderXan @furkachi Or creating a work, any work, for the sole purpose of generating revenue, rather than expressing an idea, or inspiring people, or other creative urge. I've hit that point: I'm currently writing porn because I believe it will sell, and I need the money. My ttrpg and research writing has generated so little income that my tax preparer has never counted it in my returns. Feedback from readers? Yeah right, I've gotten all of three comments on the cushaw article. LiberaPay = 0.
@WanderingBeekeeper @InvaderXan And to be honest, it should not be taken as a source of shame or error to sell out, in the sense that we're all forced to take part in unconsensual labor to survive in the very likely chance we can't completely align our wants and the economy. Especially that making art for purely monetary purposes doesn't make your personal art less authentic?
@furkachi @InvaderXan We are forced to live in a capitalist environment, yes, at least until we can burn it the fuck down. What it does is deprive me of time and energy to pursue my personal art. The lack of interest - art to me is a conversation between artist and audience - deprives me of motivation to create, leaving me to produce for the content/revenue stream based solely on what will sell, rather than pursuing an artistic vision and making something new and possibly inspiring.
@InvaderXan @furkachi pardon me if I'm not entirely rational or well collected on this subject. I spent thirty years making art, and am now old and very very bitter about never finding an audience, while crappy writers who can churn out potboilers in a month enjoy financial success. Capitalist commodification of art and the lack of funds for art on the part of most of the population has left me with a body of work very few people will ever even see. I create for the conversation, not for me.
@InvaderXan @furkachi oh definitely not. For every author or painter who finds their audience, there's a dozen who throw out their art in frustration at never being able to get a reaction of any kind with it. Eight years ago, I showed a hanging lantern I made to a coworker, and he asked, if you can do that, why are you working here, and I answered, because there's nobody out there willing to pay me for my labor. That lantern is in a box on the floor behind me.
@InvaderXan @furkachi The synthesis of these would be that art is less funded than trade schools (and results in the "starving artist" trope) because it's harder to serve as the middleman that takes all the credit (i.e. the boss) in such an unstable and inherently expressive and individual industry.
@InvaderXan I completely agree that creatives are undervalued (often to the point of being compeltely unpaid while others profit).
I'm not sure where I stand on 'content' as a term. It's helpful to me sometimes to encompass all of the things I make, not all of which is fiction. I guess I can see however the way in which it homogenises in a bad way. I don't think there'd be any harm in me unlearning use of the term though, so that might be next steps for me.
@vicorva "Content" just feels like such a generic term, you know? With writing alone, it could mean a story which you spent a week carefully planning, writing, and editing, or it could mean this toot I'm typing right now. And then there's all the "content" which isn't writing. I just... ehh.
@Anke @vicorva @InvaderXan to me, it's the mindset that led to the term that is the problem.
My view is extremely coloured by having worked close to webdesign.
But it's sort of the need to have an unspecific word that is the problem, and not the word itself.
When I think of these kinds of things, I tend to use terms like "creative outlet". That term, however, is not helpful if you're trying to push yourself into posting something on the interwebs regularly.
And that's more or less on purpose.
@panina @anke @vicorva True. It's web developer speak for "stuff that goes on web pages". But that's kinda my point. Alone, it's a meaningless word. Unless you're talking technically, you could replace "content" with "stuff" and it would mean the same thing.
"I create stuff."
"We post new stuff every Tuesday and Friday!"
"Social media is about creating consistent, good quality stuff."
@InvaderXan @panina @vicorva
Yeah, I can go with "stuff" 😆
(for context: The idea is to encourage myself to a) create stuff regularly and b) share what I create regularly, but c) withOUT locking myself into a schedule of "this number of that kind of content/stuff per month" that might block mr because I really want to create something else)
1: I want to do something creative every day. Write, fix a gadget, sew something, take care of my kid's plant, whatever. Something creative.
2: I want to show stuff I've made to people. Find something I've done, and tell myself that it's good enough to show the world.
This approach, however, does not work with social media or blogs. It does not turn me an unpaid worker that improves someone else's network. And it does not earn me followers.
Which I like.
@InvaderXan Imagine Beethoven or Davinci as "content creators"
@InvaderXan It might be a function of oversupply as well.
@jenalyze Possibly. Though I can guarantee that virtually every graphic designer or freelance artist out there has had someone try and convince them to either work for free or to give away their work for an absurdly low price. I'm including myself in this.
There's plenty of demand for skilled artists. There aren't many people willing to actually pay for their work though.
@InvaderXan here's another even more sinister thing: when large platforms refer to art published on them as "user-generated content".
And then proceed to argue that it does not require the same level of "copyright protection" as whatever crap Disney or Netflix came up with this month.
Screw them with a cactus. This is art. It deserves respect and admiration, even more so than corporate-made crap chewed and spat out by a thousand focus groups to target whatever demographic they want to milk.
@InvaderXan to be clear, I believe copyright needs to be reformed and dramatically limited, since it's getting in the way of culture and communication.
But point is: whatever anybody's take on copyright is, they don't get to arbitrarily decide that some kinds of art are more worthy than others and thus strip up-and-coming artists that have not yet signed with a major corporate overlord of their rights.
Also good luck getting even friends & family to regard your work as legit and worth 2 mins. of their time if you refuse to get on every fucking Big Box platform there is to hype it 24/7.
I mean, if a space isn't crafted with an artists hand (or filled with art) that space isn't a healthy space.
Can't get much more valuable than that.
Sunbeam City is a Libertarian Socialist solarpunk instance. It is ran democratically by a cooperative of like-minded individuals.