> Ever wondered why those Netflix originals are full of narrative holes, incoherence and unbelievable characters and yet people love it?... We know how and when to shock the viewer/reader, we know what to feed a certain segment of the population. Art is not a guaranteed investment, precisely because it requires more than just a methodic approach.
A counter question: Notice how even the mainline critics now are neither well versed in spotting them (e.g. "games journalism" in its failed intentions, Rotten Tomatoes v Audience), OR they point to such insufficiencies when it is necessary (e.g. limits of the medium, resource constraints)? Is there even a reason for this, since artists know they are being forced to do so, and the audience are being dull with fat wallets?
P.S. The Menu is some sad stuff about every kind of artistic mess-up from the focus of disillusioned artists against critics and blind audience. Let's just say that this is the angry westernized version of the King of Cookery by Stephen Chow https://holapapi.substack.com/p/the-menu-serves-up-creative-class
> You want proof of that? When did "content" exploded? When the first smartphones were introduced... 2007
The same complaints applies for all forms of new media when they arrive, like radio and the newspaper. The alternative hypothesis is that whenever the economy is becoming excessively unequal, mass media gravitates towards content (serialization and metamedia) whilst high art of antiquity gets put on a pedestal (vaporwave archeofuturism). If this theory is true, then the 1910 era of radical equality would lead to a bourgeois "degenerate art" (more content-ish) boom paired with a public that prioritize quality content (more art-ish). https://peterturchin.com/age-of-discord/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
But to further further back to the 1840s and 1850s of a previous era of excessive inequality, the last era has a lot of weird development: the industrial evolution is nearing its end with the invention of vulcanized rubber, petroleum distillation, Bessemer's steel, and faster logistic technologies; bio-hacking becomes appealing e.g. Darwin's evolution, Mendel's genetics, and Snow's epidemiology (maybe even Marx and Engels' social theories too); literalist religious sects are getting embarrassed by bad predictions e.g. Succession crisis and Great Disappointment; political activism becoming more common e.g. Slavery Abolition, Women's Suffrage, Indian Mutiny, Taiping Rebellion, and Springtime of Nations; income tax and philanthropy is changing the economy.
In this time period, Kierkegaard's existentialism (on the right) and Marx's materialism (on the left) are on its rise. The media landscape of that time consists of: very wholesome tales from Charles Dickens, "sigma/schizo" satire from Edgar Allen Poe, hustle porn from Samuel Smiles, financial news from Reuters and The Economist, quit quitting from Herman Melville, true crime from "George Eliot" (pen name for a fujo), pop-sci from Scientific American. For some reason this zoomer-speak caricature of this era weirdly make sense, or maybe I am just seeing things IDK.
> I also think content is so popular these days because nothing is "stand alone" anymore; everything must be trans-media... if you're an artist, you HAVE to pump out "content" to stay in the race, always degrading your art a little more in the process (since we know long periods of deep work, free from distractions, are necessary to create anything of value).
Something from Venkatesh Rao AKA Ribbonfarm: we are exiting "High Kairos" (time period equivalent to Turchin's start of the "Ages of Discord"), and within this iteration of the 200~220 year cycle as the "Great Weirding" of 2016-2020, things will more likely be defined through chronologies (clock time), rather than through canonical events. With this within an unequal and impoverished world, the diverging Bergsonian subjective worlds (increasing preference for multiverses) is displaced by the necessity for co-ordination through objective singular reality (narrative-proof data-based history). https://archive.ph/hoqHMhttps://kadavy.net/blog/posts/clock-time-event-time/
Thank you for putting this feeling into words. I have been struggling internally to resolve this problem for myself. As someone who writes things to invoke emotions, I keep getting blocked by the pressure to create content.
"It's not worth anything if no one reads it", they say. If having a large audience is more important than good writing and the way to grow audience is pushing out more content, then the audience you are building is just looking for more content rather than good writing isn't it? At other times it feels like not everyone can appreciate art, but in order to get to those who can you need to show it to as many as you can.
In the end, the purpose of art is to share something deep inside of yourself in a way which is genuine and unwavering. The purpose of content is to reach inside others to share things that are generally agreeable and relatable to them.
There is a reason for this behavioral gap: quality is correlated with eyeballs, but mass appeal has a stronger effect than quality. At a certain point (maybe "1000 true fans"?) it is better to directly ask them about their opinions. Alternatively, maybe the "ratio" (of "being ratio'd") is dependent on audience size?
Ever since you've made me aware of the word content, I can't stop noticing its use everywhere, by seemingly everyone. I will be using the arguments presented to explain why this is such a bad thing.
"Which is why content binges bring about this vague unease and sensation of being trapped in a mirrored maze where you and your chosen content guru are shouting affirmations at your own refracted and distorted reflections."
Oooft. Right to the jugular. That sense of unease, and questioning of your own self-assuredness that you then soothe by consuming more content from a different source, deserves it's own word.
The Germans probably have one for it. They usually do.
"See, in a world without distinctions there can be no meaning. There can be no firm ground upon which you can find your footing, let alone build a life. And content is a swampland. It looks firm enough but it offer a no solidity at all."
This is a much more significant meta-point, as is most of this piece, which speaks to the nature of how all encompassing the word content has become. I've just finished a re-reading Scruton's book on an introduction to Beauty and some Tom Wolfe books on Art and Architecture, both of which take it from the turn of the century, Dada/Bauhaus origins all the way up to mid 70's territory (Warhol is still alive in both books, and referenced as such), and it's crazy how everything that's going on today is just a natural evolution of what happened from 1900-1970.
As a side note, in using the word piece and not 'post' or 'article', I'm taking one simple step away from content, and elevating your thoughts here from words on a page to work of art, for myself. I've started to do this more frequently, even in referring to someones carefully curated Instagram, and it's definitely caused me to reframe things more easily as Art vs Not Art.
Not Art can be ignored (mostly), and if something qualifies as Art (such as this), it should be carefully considered, explored, and appreciated on a different level. Just my two cents.
"Content is a transaction presented as utilitarian exchange, art is an emanation of the spirit presented as a gift."
Beautifully put. Will steal and give credit back for my next debate about the issue of 'content' (regular occurrence).
"But there is hope. Awareness can set you free. As consumer, simply understanding the two domains means you have won a fair portion of the battle. Realising that you are oversaturated with content (something that exists to get something from you) and are undernourished with art (something that simply is) is a quick fix. You just amend your inputs and see the difference."
Absolutely. Awareness is 90% of the battle won. The other 10% is wresting yourself from the teat of content, which is difficult once you're on there, because it's just too damn comfortable. On we struggle I guess.
Great piece here Tom, can tell it came from somewhere very close to the heart.
I think this article is verbose and self-aggrandizing article. What's all the fuss about wether its content or art? Everything below and above this line is content on this website. Keep up the good work.
Exactly: Could I talk to this guy as an equal? Could I tolerate a conversation with this guy?
It speaks to whether the person is still at least somewhat normal or has descended into being a pontificating guru who is used to being applauded by yes-men no matter how much nonsense they spout.
You’ve got to stay at least somewhat normal to endure. Which is why I not only make sure I live a normal life but also that I try to filter out and go for a specific audience here. Quality rather than quantity.
The next phase of this begins this weekend with me turning the money tap on and giving people the option to virtually buy me that figurative internet pint in exchange for a more intimate but still normal conversation once a month.
You've definitely stood out to me as one of the few guys managing to stay relatable for lack of better word.
Unfortunately, in the internet market place of ideas, the biggest circle jerk wins. Which leads to the bs ingroup signalling and then the pontificating and the yes-men.
Funnily enough, I think you've provided me with the most real-world value then almost any of the accounts spouting 'actionable advice'.
Anyway, hopefully your money spout knocks it out the park and *at least* 10 people sign up so you can have a bender of night on us.
First I’ll pay for a piss-up, then it’ll cover the council tax. In the end the Substack subs will keep the humidor filled and the yacht staffed and my man of the people status will be revoked.
What's the etymology of the word content ? The internet tells me it comes from the latin "Continere", "to hold together, to enclose". Well, that's interesting; if content is often so hollow and meaningless, what could it "enclose", let alone "hold together"?
I think at its core, content is a simulacra of art; what it encloses are the attributes of art, without the meaning. What it holds together is our modern treadmill-culture that cannot stop for one second at the risk of collapsing. You want proof of that? When did "content" exploded? When the first smartphones were introduced, thus lifting the limitations of the previous phone generations and allowing for constant consumption (you couldn't watch a movie or read endless articles on your phone before that point; same for social medias, who didnt really exist before 2007).
"It’s an advert, it doesn’t have to make sense. If coherence and substance and beauty and form are an impediment to getting you to sign on the line which is dotted then they will be nixed without question or regret. Whatever makes the metrics move"
This is what I meant when I wrote that content is a simulacra of art. Since the Madison avenue era of advertising, we learned almost to perfection how human emotions work. We know how to provoke them, how to sustain them, how to confuse them. We know how and when to shock the viewer/reader, we know what to feed a certain segment of the population. We know it all. We've successfully conceptualized and programmed Art. So why should we bother to make "real" art anymore? Art is not a guaranteed investment, precisely because it requires more than just a methodic approach. You can master the tools all you want, you won't breathe a soul into a sculpture without faith and (shall I say it?) a little bit of madness.
So we learned how to manufacture emotions and this is what we do; we create content without coherence; ever wondered why those Netflix originals are full of narrative holes, incoherences and unbelievable characters and yet people love it? Because the pacing, fake emotions and music copy real art. And it works. It's much easier, sustainable and economically viable to produce Mc Burgers than gourmet food. A Marvel movie is a simulacra of a genuine 80s adventure movie. Modern soulless reboots and sequels copy the original work and manufacture the same emotions - like a chinese forgery. There's a great movie I recommend to anyone that's called "The best offer". One of the best quotes is "There's always something authentic concealed in every forgery". I think this fits perfectly here.
I also think content is so popular these days because nothing is "stand alone" anymore; everything must be trans-media: a popular Youtube channel will be the gateway to a book deal, a movie will be used to sell merchandising, a book will be written in order to be easily adaptable for Netflix, etc. Modern culture is a Lovecraftian octopus that mixes everything together to maximize its monetary value and thus, making sure all art is, de facto, content.
The way internet sped things also didn't help; 20 years ago you could be a musical artist and produce one album every two years; your audience would answer your call. Nowadays, 2 years is like 20 years. The amount of available content and the ever-diminishing attention span makes this way of doing things obsolete. So even if you're an artist, you HAVE to pump out "content" to stay in the race, always degrading your art a little more in the process (since we know long periods of deep work, free from distractions, are necessary to create anything of value).
"And that might be objectively true. Everything might essentially be for sale. But a worldview such as that is damaging. A world like that is hard to live in."
And there lies the biggest issue IMO. If we want real Art to thrive, there must be an artist but there must also be a "receiver"; and content desensitizes and drags down the receiver, making him unable to appreciate art (see the Netflix generation). This alienation is perhaps the greatest crime of the content culture.
And I'll stop there, because I realize i must have typed a behemoth of a comment. Anyway, like this comment if you appreciated it and subscribe to Tom's newsletter, his content definitely deserves it !
There's a great movie I recommend to anyone that's called "The best offer". One of the best quotes is "There's always something authentic concealed in every forgery". I think this fits perfectly here.
Man, before I say anything else I want to say that this sounds fantastic and I will definitely be checking it out.
Though the ideas in this weeks piece here are very rudimentary and feeling around in the dark I do feel like I am on to something. I am usually the guy who rallies against dichotomies and duality but trying to separate out the difference between art and content does seem to be useful
(I recall in various books in Talebs Incerto where he has tables that highlight the difference between say fragile, robust and anti fragile in different scenarios. I guess art vs content can stand similar analysis)
So from what I can gather, and from what people have emailed/messaged me it might go a little something like this:
CONTENT. ART
Timely. Timeless
Prolific. As and when
Forced. Unforced
Reactive to zeitgeist. Creates zeitgeist
Metric driven. Oblivious to metrics
Jack of all trades. Master of one
Inclusive. Exclusive.
I will have to expand on this in future, but that’s the primary sketch.
Loved this one, Thomas! You’ve eloquently captured the thing that has been bugging me for months now and I haven’t been able to put words to. I touched on it in this borderline rant I wrote a few months back: https://lyle.substack.com/p/the-masterclass-effect. Many of my other pieces I try to approach as art, rather than content. But it’s tricky because I do want as many people as possible to read them. The struggle is real.
Sorry for this emphatic idiocy, but... The whole article feels like asking if people are (a) too scared of "touching grass", (b) did not give themselves permission to do so or (c) that people are genuinely so self-harming that they need a guide on how not to microwave your tin-foiled leftovers. And it is both terrifying that most people on the mainstream harp about the first two whilst missing the third point, not everyone is smart to deserve real agency (sometimes honest color-by-numbers advice will suffice), and not everyone can tolerate simulated agency displacing "aristocratic education" (self-help are pseudo-activity within the game of autonomy). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eQcgMxWy4ghttps://eggreport.substack.com/p/food-and-timehttps://eggreport.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-disaffected-youthhttps://erikhoel.substack.com/p/why-we-stopped-making-einsteins
“Be authentic,” they say one minute. Then, “Buy my thing that will make you more like me,” the next. If they were being authentic, they would say, “Look. I had shitty days and shitty nights where I wanted to quit. But I kept going. I tried something. It didn’t work. I tried something else. It still didn’t work. I tried something else yet again. And then it worked. Somehow. So I did that again. And again. And again. But here’s the thing—I still don’t have it all figured out.”
Good stuff here, Lyle.
And the thing at the heart of it is that the course seller didn’t buy a course they just figured it out. Even if such people are well meaning and are honestly trying to help and teach the whole thing has more than a little whiff of Ponzi scheme about it.
I think the way to see these things in your case is that content is the means to draw eyes to the art. The art stays pure and is a gift. It is the performance. The content draws people to the art. It is the flyer. I think evening seeing this distinction even if it ends up blurring in reality can be useful. Or at least I hope that’s the case.
I love the idea of the content being a flyer. That takes me back to when I played in a band and we stapled flyers to telephone poles around town for our upcoming live shows.
That’s exactly where I got the idea from. I have to remind myself from time to time that it’s absurd to spend all of my energy making flyers when I either haven’t got a gig booked(I.e. working on a long term, long form project) or that I’m not rehearsing for the gig.
For whatever reason this analogy resonates with me and helps me snap out of unproductive promotional behaviour.
Oh very very well done Thomas. A clear distinction was what was missing from my own hazy distinction between content and art. All I had was “content tries too hard”. But now the “gift” definition says it so much better.
Explains why I much prefer writing songs as gifts to people. And why my best writing is just me flinging rambling ideas onto a page.
Even better, it explains why “make for the sake of making” produces stuff that’s more content than art. A gift involves someone to be given to someone. Whether a friend, or yourself. Making for the sake of it is usually directionless. Or worse, pretentious and desperately performative. Like a peacock of sorts.
“Art is a gift”. Definitely one of the best ideas in your commonplace. At least in my book.
A weird counter-point: instead of the whole transaction vs gift distinction (assuming a person is hypothetically friendless), could it be said that there is a separation between keeping time vs slowing time, or making something that is beautiful more permanent and timeless? Inversely if someone is a maladapt, would that manifest as the Disney media hyper-canon, and ending creativity in the process?
Glad you got something out of this one Judah. You might enjoy looking up some anthropology on those more tribal gift-driven societies. It provides a good counterpoint with which to see out current world in the West.
The take on art as gift I laid out here is heavily informed by The Gift by Lewis Hyde- which though at times meandering and I would say overlong (the pot and the kettle here!) has some wonderful insights sprinkled within it.
Good luck on the paid subscriptions. I wish I hadn't have done it, I didn't get as many subscribers as I'd hoped, so some of my better stuff is only seen by a few. But my writing isn't on your level, so I think you'll do fine. It's a fine line indeed. Content is the buzzword these days and I refuse to consider myself as a content creator. I'm a storyteller. The things i write about weren't 'created', they happened. I suspect your writing is the same, it isn't created, it flows. Like art should.
‘Content creator’ implies a churning out, production line mentality. You’ll note how many content creators put an emphasis on consistency and being prolific and ‘shipping’
Which are all fine as far as it goes.
But with stories sometimes you can only tell them when the spirit moves you, or when the right listener emerges, or when the stories have percolated for long enough.
For what it’s worth, Chief, the people who do see your work enjoy it. And I know because I’m one of them.
> Ever wondered why those Netflix originals are full of narrative holes, incoherence and unbelievable characters and yet people love it?... We know how and when to shock the viewer/reader, we know what to feed a certain segment of the population. Art is not a guaranteed investment, precisely because it requires more than just a methodic approach.
A counter question: Notice how even the mainline critics now are neither well versed in spotting them (e.g. "games journalism" in its failed intentions, Rotten Tomatoes v Audience), OR they point to such insufficiencies when it is necessary (e.g. limits of the medium, resource constraints)? Is there even a reason for this, since artists know they are being forced to do so, and the audience are being dull with fat wallets?
P.S. The Menu is some sad stuff about every kind of artistic mess-up from the focus of disillusioned artists against critics and blind audience. Let's just say that this is the angry westernized version of the King of Cookery by Stephen Chow https://holapapi.substack.com/p/the-menu-serves-up-creative-class
> You want proof of that? When did "content" exploded? When the first smartphones were introduced... 2007
The same complaints applies for all forms of new media when they arrive, like radio and the newspaper. The alternative hypothesis is that whenever the economy is becoming excessively unequal, mass media gravitates towards content (serialization and metamedia) whilst high art of antiquity gets put on a pedestal (vaporwave archeofuturism). If this theory is true, then the 1910 era of radical equality would lead to a bourgeois "degenerate art" (more content-ish) boom paired with a public that prioritize quality content (more art-ish). https://peterturchin.com/age-of-discord/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
But to further further back to the 1840s and 1850s of a previous era of excessive inequality, the last era has a lot of weird development: the industrial evolution is nearing its end with the invention of vulcanized rubber, petroleum distillation, Bessemer's steel, and faster logistic technologies; bio-hacking becomes appealing e.g. Darwin's evolution, Mendel's genetics, and Snow's epidemiology (maybe even Marx and Engels' social theories too); literalist religious sects are getting embarrassed by bad predictions e.g. Succession crisis and Great Disappointment; political activism becoming more common e.g. Slavery Abolition, Women's Suffrage, Indian Mutiny, Taiping Rebellion, and Springtime of Nations; income tax and philanthropy is changing the economy.
In this time period, Kierkegaard's existentialism (on the right) and Marx's materialism (on the left) are on its rise. The media landscape of that time consists of: very wholesome tales from Charles Dickens, "sigma/schizo" satire from Edgar Allen Poe, hustle porn from Samuel Smiles, financial news from Reuters and The Economist, quit quitting from Herman Melville, true crime from "George Eliot" (pen name for a fujo), pop-sci from Scientific American. For some reason this zoomer-speak caricature of this era weirdly make sense, or maybe I am just seeing things IDK.
> I also think content is so popular these days because nothing is "stand alone" anymore; everything must be trans-media... if you're an artist, you HAVE to pump out "content" to stay in the race, always degrading your art a little more in the process (since we know long periods of deep work, free from distractions, are necessary to create anything of value).
Something from Venkatesh Rao AKA Ribbonfarm: we are exiting "High Kairos" (time period equivalent to Turchin's start of the "Ages of Discord"), and within this iteration of the 200~220 year cycle as the "Great Weirding" of 2016-2020, things will more likely be defined through chronologies (clock time), rather than through canonical events. With this within an unequal and impoverished world, the diverging Bergsonian subjective worlds (increasing preference for multiverses) is displaced by the necessity for co-ordination through objective singular reality (narrative-proof data-based history). https://archive.ph/hoqHM https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/clock-time-event-time/
Rao also hypothesized that the Marvel Consoomer Universe is an ossified polytheism, and that devotion/fandom displaces morals, autonomy, and creativity. Conversely western monotheistic "resistance art" is impossible since it is incapable to create a multiverse by its design. https://archive.ph/Lhl1l https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/01/16/on-the-design-of-escaped-realities/
Thank you for putting this feeling into words. I have been struggling internally to resolve this problem for myself. As someone who writes things to invoke emotions, I keep getting blocked by the pressure to create content.
"It's not worth anything if no one reads it", they say. If having a large audience is more important than good writing and the way to grow audience is pushing out more content, then the audience you are building is just looking for more content rather than good writing isn't it? At other times it feels like not everyone can appreciate art, but in order to get to those who can you need to show it to as many as you can.
In the end, the purpose of art is to share something deep inside of yourself in a way which is genuine and unwavering. The purpose of content is to reach inside others to share things that are generally agreeable and relatable to them.
There is a reason for this behavioral gap: quality is correlated with eyeballs, but mass appeal has a stronger effect than quality. At a certain point (maybe "1000 true fans"?) it is better to directly ask them about their opinions. Alternatively, maybe the "ratio" (of "being ratio'd") is dependent on audience size?
Ever since you've made me aware of the word content, I can't stop noticing its use everywhere, by seemingly everyone. I will be using the arguments presented to explain why this is such a bad thing.
"Which is why content binges bring about this vague unease and sensation of being trapped in a mirrored maze where you and your chosen content guru are shouting affirmations at your own refracted and distorted reflections."
Oooft. Right to the jugular. That sense of unease, and questioning of your own self-assuredness that you then soothe by consuming more content from a different source, deserves it's own word.
The Germans probably have one for it. They usually do.
"See, in a world without distinctions there can be no meaning. There can be no firm ground upon which you can find your footing, let alone build a life. And content is a swampland. It looks firm enough but it offer a no solidity at all."
This is a much more significant meta-point, as is most of this piece, which speaks to the nature of how all encompassing the word content has become. I've just finished a re-reading Scruton's book on an introduction to Beauty and some Tom Wolfe books on Art and Architecture, both of which take it from the turn of the century, Dada/Bauhaus origins all the way up to mid 70's territory (Warhol is still alive in both books, and referenced as such), and it's crazy how everything that's going on today is just a natural evolution of what happened from 1900-1970.
As a side note, in using the word piece and not 'post' or 'article', I'm taking one simple step away from content, and elevating your thoughts here from words on a page to work of art, for myself. I've started to do this more frequently, even in referring to someones carefully curated Instagram, and it's definitely caused me to reframe things more easily as Art vs Not Art.
Not Art can be ignored (mostly), and if something qualifies as Art (such as this), it should be carefully considered, explored, and appreciated on a different level. Just my two cents.
"Content is a transaction presented as utilitarian exchange, art is an emanation of the spirit presented as a gift."
Beautifully put. Will steal and give credit back for my next debate about the issue of 'content' (regular occurrence).
"But there is hope. Awareness can set you free. As consumer, simply understanding the two domains means you have won a fair portion of the battle. Realising that you are oversaturated with content (something that exists to get something from you) and are undernourished with art (something that simply is) is a quick fix. You just amend your inputs and see the difference."
Absolutely. Awareness is 90% of the battle won. The other 10% is wresting yourself from the teat of content, which is difficult once you're on there, because it's just too damn comfortable. On we struggle I guess.
Great piece here Tom, can tell it came from somewhere very close to the heart.
I think this article is verbose and self-aggrandizing article. What's all the fuss about wether its content or art? Everything below and above this line is content on this website. Keep up the good work.
Just inspired my new litmus test for subscribing to content: would I want to discuss this guys art over a beer? If so, I’m happy to shout one.
Exactly: Could I talk to this guy as an equal? Could I tolerate a conversation with this guy?
It speaks to whether the person is still at least somewhat normal or has descended into being a pontificating guru who is used to being applauded by yes-men no matter how much nonsense they spout.
You’ve got to stay at least somewhat normal to endure. Which is why I not only make sure I live a normal life but also that I try to filter out and go for a specific audience here. Quality rather than quantity.
The next phase of this begins this weekend with me turning the money tap on and giving people the option to virtually buy me that figurative internet pint in exchange for a more intimate but still normal conversation once a month.
Pleasure to hear from you as always, Gaz.
You've definitely stood out to me as one of the few guys managing to stay relatable for lack of better word.
Unfortunately, in the internet market place of ideas, the biggest circle jerk wins. Which leads to the bs ingroup signalling and then the pontificating and the yes-men.
Funnily enough, I think you've provided me with the most real-world value then almost any of the accounts spouting 'actionable advice'.
Anyway, hopefully your money spout knocks it out the park and *at least* 10 people sign up so you can have a bender of night on us.
First I’ll pay for a piss-up, then it’ll cover the council tax. In the end the Substack subs will keep the humidor filled and the yacht staffed and my man of the people status will be revoked.
A noble goal.
If we don’t have dreams, then what do we have?
lambos, yachts, etc cause we've achieved everything we've been told to desire.
What's the etymology of the word content ? The internet tells me it comes from the latin "Continere", "to hold together, to enclose". Well, that's interesting; if content is often so hollow and meaningless, what could it "enclose", let alone "hold together"?
I think at its core, content is a simulacra of art; what it encloses are the attributes of art, without the meaning. What it holds together is our modern treadmill-culture that cannot stop for one second at the risk of collapsing. You want proof of that? When did "content" exploded? When the first smartphones were introduced, thus lifting the limitations of the previous phone generations and allowing for constant consumption (you couldn't watch a movie or read endless articles on your phone before that point; same for social medias, who didnt really exist before 2007).
"It’s an advert, it doesn’t have to make sense. If coherence and substance and beauty and form are an impediment to getting you to sign on the line which is dotted then they will be nixed without question or regret. Whatever makes the metrics move"
This is what I meant when I wrote that content is a simulacra of art. Since the Madison avenue era of advertising, we learned almost to perfection how human emotions work. We know how to provoke them, how to sustain them, how to confuse them. We know how and when to shock the viewer/reader, we know what to feed a certain segment of the population. We know it all. We've successfully conceptualized and programmed Art. So why should we bother to make "real" art anymore? Art is not a guaranteed investment, precisely because it requires more than just a methodic approach. You can master the tools all you want, you won't breathe a soul into a sculpture without faith and (shall I say it?) a little bit of madness.
So we learned how to manufacture emotions and this is what we do; we create content without coherence; ever wondered why those Netflix originals are full of narrative holes, incoherences and unbelievable characters and yet people love it? Because the pacing, fake emotions and music copy real art. And it works. It's much easier, sustainable and economically viable to produce Mc Burgers than gourmet food. A Marvel movie is a simulacra of a genuine 80s adventure movie. Modern soulless reboots and sequels copy the original work and manufacture the same emotions - like a chinese forgery. There's a great movie I recommend to anyone that's called "The best offer". One of the best quotes is "There's always something authentic concealed in every forgery". I think this fits perfectly here.
I also think content is so popular these days because nothing is "stand alone" anymore; everything must be trans-media: a popular Youtube channel will be the gateway to a book deal, a movie will be used to sell merchandising, a book will be written in order to be easily adaptable for Netflix, etc. Modern culture is a Lovecraftian octopus that mixes everything together to maximize its monetary value and thus, making sure all art is, de facto, content.
The way internet sped things also didn't help; 20 years ago you could be a musical artist and produce one album every two years; your audience would answer your call. Nowadays, 2 years is like 20 years. The amount of available content and the ever-diminishing attention span makes this way of doing things obsolete. So even if you're an artist, you HAVE to pump out "content" to stay in the race, always degrading your art a little more in the process (since we know long periods of deep work, free from distractions, are necessary to create anything of value).
"And that might be objectively true. Everything might essentially be for sale. But a worldview such as that is damaging. A world like that is hard to live in."
And there lies the biggest issue IMO. If we want real Art to thrive, there must be an artist but there must also be a "receiver"; and content desensitizes and drags down the receiver, making him unable to appreciate art (see the Netflix generation). This alienation is perhaps the greatest crime of the content culture.
And I'll stop there, because I realize i must have typed a behemoth of a comment. Anyway, like this comment if you appreciated it and subscribe to Tom's newsletter, his content definitely deserves it !
There's a great movie I recommend to anyone that's called "The best offer". One of the best quotes is "There's always something authentic concealed in every forgery". I think this fits perfectly here.
Man, before I say anything else I want to say that this sounds fantastic and I will definitely be checking it out.
Though the ideas in this weeks piece here are very rudimentary and feeling around in the dark I do feel like I am on to something. I am usually the guy who rallies against dichotomies and duality but trying to separate out the difference between art and content does seem to be useful
(I recall in various books in Talebs Incerto where he has tables that highlight the difference between say fragile, robust and anti fragile in different scenarios. I guess art vs content can stand similar analysis)
So from what I can gather, and from what people have emailed/messaged me it might go a little something like this:
CONTENT. ART
Timely. Timeless
Prolific. As and when
Forced. Unforced
Reactive to zeitgeist. Creates zeitgeist
Metric driven. Oblivious to metrics
Jack of all trades. Master of one
Inclusive. Exclusive.
I will have to expand on this in future, but that’s the primary sketch.
Thanks as always Sebastien.
That didn’t format how I wanted it to. Oh well. You all get the gist anyway.
Loved this one, Thomas! You’ve eloquently captured the thing that has been bugging me for months now and I haven’t been able to put words to. I touched on it in this borderline rant I wrote a few months back: https://lyle.substack.com/p/the-masterclass-effect. Many of my other pieces I try to approach as art, rather than content. But it’s tricky because I do want as many people as possible to read them. The struggle is real.
Sorry for this emphatic idiocy, but... The whole article feels like asking if people are (a) too scared of "touching grass", (b) did not give themselves permission to do so or (c) that people are genuinely so self-harming that they need a guide on how not to microwave your tin-foiled leftovers. And it is both terrifying that most people on the mainstream harp about the first two whilst missing the third point, not everyone is smart to deserve real agency (sometimes honest color-by-numbers advice will suffice), and not everyone can tolerate simulated agency displacing "aristocratic education" (self-help are pseudo-activity within the game of autonomy). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eQcgMxWy4g https://eggreport.substack.com/p/food-and-time https://eggreport.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-disaffected-youth https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/why-we-stopped-making-einsteins
“Be authentic,” they say one minute. Then, “Buy my thing that will make you more like me,” the next. If they were being authentic, they would say, “Look. I had shitty days and shitty nights where I wanted to quit. But I kept going. I tried something. It didn’t work. I tried something else. It still didn’t work. I tried something else yet again. And then it worked. Somehow. So I did that again. And again. And again. But here’s the thing—I still don’t have it all figured out.”
Good stuff here, Lyle.
And the thing at the heart of it is that the course seller didn’t buy a course they just figured it out. Even if such people are well meaning and are honestly trying to help and teach the whole thing has more than a little whiff of Ponzi scheme about it.
I think the way to see these things in your case is that content is the means to draw eyes to the art. The art stays pure and is a gift. It is the performance. The content draws people to the art. It is the flyer. I think evening seeing this distinction even if it ends up blurring in reality can be useful. Or at least I hope that’s the case.
Cheers.
I love the idea of the content being a flyer. That takes me back to when I played in a band and we stapled flyers to telephone poles around town for our upcoming live shows.
Thanks for giving my piece a read, Thomas!
That’s exactly where I got the idea from. I have to remind myself from time to time that it’s absurd to spend all of my energy making flyers when I either haven’t got a gig booked(I.e. working on a long term, long form project) or that I’m not rehearsing for the gig.
For whatever reason this analogy resonates with me and helps me snap out of unproductive promotional behaviour.
Oh very very well done Thomas. A clear distinction was what was missing from my own hazy distinction between content and art. All I had was “content tries too hard”. But now the “gift” definition says it so much better.
Explains why I much prefer writing songs as gifts to people. And why my best writing is just me flinging rambling ideas onto a page.
Even better, it explains why “make for the sake of making” produces stuff that’s more content than art. A gift involves someone to be given to someone. Whether a friend, or yourself. Making for the sake of it is usually directionless. Or worse, pretentious and desperately performative. Like a peacock of sorts.
“Art is a gift”. Definitely one of the best ideas in your commonplace. At least in my book.
A weird counter-point: instead of the whole transaction vs gift distinction (assuming a person is hypothetically friendless), could it be said that there is a separation between keeping time vs slowing time, or making something that is beautiful more permanent and timeless? Inversely if someone is a maladapt, would that manifest as the Disney media hyper-canon, and ending creativity in the process?
P.S. within the link provided, there is a third form "action", or art movements that tends to push humanity forward. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/09/14/how-to-make-history/ Inspiration on the weird behaviors of a friendless person within an organization as a bitter management freak https://sasamat.xen.prgmr.com/michaelochurch/wp/?p=839
Glad you got something out of this one Judah. You might enjoy looking up some anthropology on those more tribal gift-driven societies. It provides a good counterpoint with which to see out current world in the West.
The take on art as gift I laid out here is heavily informed by The Gift by Lewis Hyde- which though at times meandering and I would say overlong (the pot and the kettle here!) has some wonderful insights sprinkled within it.
Could be worth you checking out.
Cheers.
Tom.
Good luck on the paid subscriptions. I wish I hadn't have done it, I didn't get as many subscribers as I'd hoped, so some of my better stuff is only seen by a few. But my writing isn't on your level, so I think you'll do fine. It's a fine line indeed. Content is the buzzword these days and I refuse to consider myself as a content creator. I'm a storyteller. The things i write about weren't 'created', they happened. I suspect your writing is the same, it isn't created, it flows. Like art should.
‘Content creator’ implies a churning out, production line mentality. You’ll note how many content creators put an emphasis on consistency and being prolific and ‘shipping’
Which are all fine as far as it goes.
But with stories sometimes you can only tell them when the spirit moves you, or when the right listener emerges, or when the stories have percolated for long enough.
For what it’s worth, Chief, the people who do see your work enjoy it. And I know because I’m one of them.