I wonder how much money has changed things. The early web was artsy, quirky, weird and wonderful because we all did it out of love with no expectation of making money. Now everyone tries to turn every hobby and talent into a hustle. If we are trying to make money online as writers, are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
“sharecroppers to the algorithm” needs to be incorporated into our normal lexicon.
I’ve been doing just as you advise, finding likeminded artists and discussing ways forward and opportunities to collaborate.
More specifically, we’ve been exploring the idea of SUPERVERSION as applied to typically nihilistic genres. For example, I’m currently writing a gritty noir novel in real time on Substack that is intentionally, though subtly, a retelling of The Fall of Adam and Eve.
Yes. Diminished expectations have driven so much of the decline of art – at least as I see it in the realm of writing – due a great deal I’d say to the *it’s good enough* mentality and the gaping maw of the content beast which is never satisfied no matter how much you feed it because quantity and that which is *today* (and not so damn yesterday) tops the pop charts.
An endless churn but – as you say – we don’t need to buy into it. The vanity metrics you mention can be turned off and ignored, as much as possible at least.
One heretical thought is that a platform or a collective doesn’t have to be based on them, and that it could refrain (okay, two heretical thoughts, pardon my math) from taking advantage of people’s tendency to like that which others have told them to like via most popular lists and other displays of so-called social status, although that would require a certain kind of courage to actually do something outside the engagement box. But courage is still in supply and we could open its cupboard and pull it out.
I am not sure that anything that is authentic and interesting can actually be shoved through the series of tubes and remain intact in meaning at the output. You might use it to get the word out, but careful how much the word spreads. Scarcity is part what makes a thing special and desirable; it's necessary, though not sufficient.
Gatekeeping is good. It's the difference between that cool indie band you used to love and the pop sensation they became. Privacy is good. It's the difference between a romantic evening and being stuck in traffic. Obscurity is good. It's the difference between your favorite hiking trail and a Walmart parking lot. Exclusivity is good. It's the difference between your bedroom and a bunkhouse.
Not everything is or should be for everyone. Maybe the next time you make something great, don't put it on the internet. Sharing is not caring, it's desecration.
We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant person who goes on creating engagement-bait "content" for social media because he cannot imagine what is meant by making art for his own enjoyment and letting history and chance get that art in front of the right people eventually. We are far too easily pleased.
As I read this, I could hear it being spoken by Chris in the Morning, from Northern Exposure. Try it. It works. And if you don't know about Northern Exposure, go get yourself a DVD player and buy all 6 series, as it's not available any other way. TJB, in this empty vessel of meaningless we call the internet, you rock, as Chris might say.
Nov 22, 2023·edited Nov 23, 2023Liked by Thomas J Bevan
It's not the Internet. It's people. It was like this before the Internet. It will be like this after the Internet. Originally is rare. Genius is rare. We wallow and repeat ourselves. The Internet did not make it more so or less so. It is just the latest whipping boy for the fact that it is so.
"Web 2.0 is energetically dead." Do you think this is because "user generated content" is rubbish? When twitter began I remember thinking, why the hell would I want to know what ordinary people have to say about the news? It's like Gogglebox. It's stupid people commenting and "writing" about important events that require nuance. Most people have no idea about the research and ethics involved in reporting, which is what I expect from journalists. Alas that last part may not always be true, but citizen journalism is even more of an oxymoron. So yeah, we're reading and watching c-grade information by people who don't know a thing about journalism. How could that possibly have turned out any way other than wrong?
As my mother used to say “more is not necessarily better”. It applies to The Internet. Now mainly just useful, like say, measuring spoons, but not all that much fun especially when you find you have 6 sets all over the drawer, not grouped together. I gravitate to guestimating rather than look for what I need.
"Find your people, band together, make cool shit, have fun. The internet is (still) the greatest potential facilitator for this in the history of the world. We just have to remember that and use it rather than defaulting to letting it use us."
I think there are greenshoots of this happening here on Substack (in as much as it can online, anyway).
Can I ask where you’re based? I’m looking to get people together IRL. Also, how would you feel about speaking on this at my upcoming salon? It will be online, but only as a means to organize people to meet offline.
"Web 2.0 is energetically dead. It’s done. It is powered by inertia alone at this point."
Especially salient characterization right here imo.
I wonder how much money has changed things. The early web was artsy, quirky, weird and wonderful because we all did it out of love with no expectation of making money. Now everyone tries to turn every hobby and talent into a hustle. If we are trying to make money online as writers, are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
“sharecroppers to the algorithm” needs to be incorporated into our normal lexicon.
I’ve been doing just as you advise, finding likeminded artists and discussing ways forward and opportunities to collaborate.
More specifically, we’ve been exploring the idea of SUPERVERSION as applied to typically nihilistic genres. For example, I’m currently writing a gritty noir novel in real time on Substack that is intentionally, though subtly, a retelling of The Fall of Adam and Eve.
Yes. Diminished expectations have driven so much of the decline of art – at least as I see it in the realm of writing – due a great deal I’d say to the *it’s good enough* mentality and the gaping maw of the content beast which is never satisfied no matter how much you feed it because quantity and that which is *today* (and not so damn yesterday) tops the pop charts.
An endless churn but – as you say – we don’t need to buy into it. The vanity metrics you mention can be turned off and ignored, as much as possible at least.
One heretical thought is that a platform or a collective doesn’t have to be based on them, and that it could refrain (okay, two heretical thoughts, pardon my math) from taking advantage of people’s tendency to like that which others have told them to like via most popular lists and other displays of so-called social status, although that would require a certain kind of courage to actually do something outside the engagement box. But courage is still in supply and we could open its cupboard and pull it out.
This is one reason I post my weird experimental music here, and photos as well as essays. I want to get some of my actual art out into the world.
I am not sure that anything that is authentic and interesting can actually be shoved through the series of tubes and remain intact in meaning at the output. You might use it to get the word out, but careful how much the word spreads. Scarcity is part what makes a thing special and desirable; it's necessary, though not sufficient.
Gatekeeping is good. It's the difference between that cool indie band you used to love and the pop sensation they became. Privacy is good. It's the difference between a romantic evening and being stuck in traffic. Obscurity is good. It's the difference between your favorite hiking trail and a Walmart parking lot. Exclusivity is good. It's the difference between your bedroom and a bunkhouse.
Not everything is or should be for everyone. Maybe the next time you make something great, don't put it on the internet. Sharing is not caring, it's desecration.
We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant person who goes on creating engagement-bait "content" for social media because he cannot imagine what is meant by making art for his own enjoyment and letting history and chance get that art in front of the right people eventually. We are far too easily pleased.
Great piece! Definitely resonates.
You might enjoy connecting with Rob Hardy who is exploring this area: https://open.substack.com/pub/ungated/p/im-writing-a-book?r=2urhn&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
As I read this, I could hear it being spoken by Chris in the Morning, from Northern Exposure. Try it. It works. And if you don't know about Northern Exposure, go get yourself a DVD player and buy all 6 series, as it's not available any other way. TJB, in this empty vessel of meaningless we call the internet, you rock, as Chris might say.
It's not the Internet. It's people. It was like this before the Internet. It will be like this after the Internet. Originally is rare. Genius is rare. We wallow and repeat ourselves. The Internet did not make it more so or less so. It is just the latest whipping boy for the fact that it is so.
Love this so much
"Web 2.0 is energetically dead." Do you think this is because "user generated content" is rubbish? When twitter began I remember thinking, why the hell would I want to know what ordinary people have to say about the news? It's like Gogglebox. It's stupid people commenting and "writing" about important events that require nuance. Most people have no idea about the research and ethics involved in reporting, which is what I expect from journalists. Alas that last part may not always be true, but citizen journalism is even more of an oxymoron. So yeah, we're reading and watching c-grade information by people who don't know a thing about journalism. How could that possibly have turned out any way other than wrong?
As my mother used to say “more is not necessarily better”. It applies to The Internet. Now mainly just useful, like say, measuring spoons, but not all that much fun especially when you find you have 6 sets all over the drawer, not grouped together. I gravitate to guestimating rather than look for what I need.
What is the grayscale setting and how do I do it? iPhone owner. I agree with nearly everything you are writing.
"Find your people, band together, make cool shit, have fun. The internet is (still) the greatest potential facilitator for this in the history of the world. We just have to remember that and use it rather than defaulting to letting it use us."
I think there are greenshoots of this happening here on Substack (in as much as it can online, anyway).
Can I ask where you’re based? I’m looking to get people together IRL. Also, how would you feel about speaking on this at my upcoming salon? It will be online, but only as a means to organize people to meet offline.