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?
That's part of the siren song of the corporate internet- monetisation.
Monetisation, content, metrics- it's the safe, sanitised, KPI driven mentality of the dullest part of business as applied to the arts.
As to your question- I think money can be made and it's not inherently bad but it's not the be all, end all or the sole aim. Back in the blog days you would see a writer release a book/collection/product after their audience BEGGED them to do so. It was never the writers first thought going in.
Yes, I think you're right. It's better for a lot of independent people to be paid directly than for platforms to control everything (which gets into questions about Substack in the long run, but we'll side step that for the moment). But the ability for people to "monetize" everything has drastically changed behaviors of people. So many now "build audiences." They censor what they post to "stay on brand." This is one reason feeds are so boring now. Probably the biggest mistake we made somewhere along the way (as tech people) is not building an open payments protocol into the net. That opened the door for the big five tech companies to effectively control everything. I do however, think there is something to be said about having hobbies just for the simple sake of doing something interesting and creative with no plans to ever make money from it. That is a very human activity with pure motivations. And quite far from the hustlebro attitudes in the typical X feed. We (techies and wierdos) used to freely share ideas with one another and build on each other's ideas and work. Now "everyone" holds their ideas close to their chest so they can later turn them into a course on gumroad! I'm not holding myself above any of this, I've been guilty of it as well. In any case, none of it changes your point which is - we still have a choice.
You just have to be outspoken and not give a damn if you lose some subscribers. I have been outspoken about Israel bombing innocents in Gaza and I lost more than a few subscribers and now things have leveled out, where as before it was growing. The point is not my position on that issue, the point is you can do good work here because it is thus far uncensored, but you have to be willing to take some hits when you say unpopular things, which has always been true in the real art world.
Yes. I have always tried to write and create things in an artsy, quirky, weird, way, and the early Internet supported that, especially via LiveJournal, which had a thriving community in the early 2000s of people pouring their hearts out for no other reason than they wanted to. I will soon aim to do the same here in a more focused way, but still plan to be writing about unconventional things from my own perspective.
I'm several months late to this, but to add my two cents (we are talking money, after all...)
You're right: money has changed things, fundamentally.
But let me suggest that it's in a slightly different way than you point out. I don't believe we've all suddenly become brainwashed by the possibility and allure of making money online. I believe it's the opposite: we've collectively been driven to the necessity of trying to make money online because of the massive fault lines that have appeared in the entire superstructure of work and livelihoods, at all levels, in all "western" countries, in virtually every industry.
Freelancing, gig economics and digital nomadism promised us freedom and opportunity and work-from-wherever-you-want. Many people have instead become debt slaves, scrabbling whatever meagre money they can make to try to make ends meet.
“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.
This is the way. As well as getting likeminded people into my own community via this substack I want to see other people do their own thing to. Like how in the punk days every city would have its own scene and local label and bands could take in all of these different scenes when they toured.
We need ecosystems rather than atomised individual artists trying to court favour with literal robots via platform algorithms.
In terms of self-published fiction, all the top “successful” gurus lean hard in the other direction: preaching the gospel of gaming the algorithm through advertising and the production of cookie-cutter units of entertainment. In short, here’s how I trick people into buying my ephemeral widgets.
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.
There's definitely a wider discussion to be had about how platforms use network effects and an even wider one still about how envy and mimetic desire (learning what to desire from what other desire) influence all of this. Big platforms could be engineered TODAY to make people scroll less and meet people more IRL. It's a relatively quick fix to make.
But as much as that discussion is interesting I think platforms will only change (if they ever do) as a panic reaction to people losing interest in them and going elsewhere. Hence this talk of collectives and private meeting places and creating art and all the rest of it.
With the STSC I'm trying to point the way. It will be imperfect. By necessity some engagement tactics and such will have to be used to draw people to a better way. But personally I can't stand by and moan about the state of the internet (and by extension culture) and do nothing.
Making an honest start- doing SOMETHING- is enough for now. I have faith it'll inspire a few others to follow in our footsteps.
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.
'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.'
I'm not sure either- at all- but I figure why don't I give it a go and find out.
'Not everything is or should be for everyone. Maybe the next time you make something great, don't put it on the internet.'
I've written reams of poetry that only one person has ever seen or ever will see, so I respect this viewpoint a tonne.
You make a lot of bold, interesting points in this reply. Really appreciated it. Thanks for sharing (😉)
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.
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.
I get this viewpoint, I really do. But the way I see it the internet- or this little corner of it at least- is something that I do have some modicum of influence in and control over so that's where I'm directing my energy. Because i figure, why not?
"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?
I forgot to add. The other problem with the internet, which I love by the way, is that creatives think far too much about what the audience wants. Do you think that Duchamp gave a shit about what the audience wanted when he stacked up a bunch of loos? We need creatives to take chances, and thinking about what the audience wants is not how you do that.
Exactly. 'Monetisation' is a real double edged sword. On the one hand the fact that someone who wouldn't get by the old gate keepers because of snobbery and class reasons can now make a living (you might argue that I am somewhat proof of this) but on the other hand it can make an artist play safe or pander to the audience to keep the monetisation train rolling.
Patrons of the arts are needed again, you could argue. Maybe the crypto rich? (maybe not) but to draw them in you need to make art cool again and part of that is a certain indifference on the artists part, a certain bloodymindedness and following your own artistic vision come what may.
Most consumers (we need to upgrade that word, but bear with me) don't know what they want from art until it is presented to them. On a certain level, if the audience is behind you then you are facing the wrong way.
Yes! Consumers (hate that word) don't know what they want. They never have. It's the role of the artist to force the viewer into a bit of discomfort. Art should not always be a pleasure. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I actually don't think so.
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.
I'm UK based. Email me at tjb_writer@protonmail.com about this salon thing, although tbh my life is pretty hectic rn so I can't make any promises sadly. Happy to help if I can though.
"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 think it's undeniable. You'll catch people writing thinkpieces about it dyING but at this point it needs to be called.
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?
That's part of the siren song of the corporate internet- monetisation.
Monetisation, content, metrics- it's the safe, sanitised, KPI driven mentality of the dullest part of business as applied to the arts.
As to your question- I think money can be made and it's not inherently bad but it's not the be all, end all or the sole aim. Back in the blog days you would see a writer release a book/collection/product after their audience BEGGED them to do so. It was never the writers first thought going in.
Yes, I think you're right. It's better for a lot of independent people to be paid directly than for platforms to control everything (which gets into questions about Substack in the long run, but we'll side step that for the moment). But the ability for people to "monetize" everything has drastically changed behaviors of people. So many now "build audiences." They censor what they post to "stay on brand." This is one reason feeds are so boring now. Probably the biggest mistake we made somewhere along the way (as tech people) is not building an open payments protocol into the net. That opened the door for the big five tech companies to effectively control everything. I do however, think there is something to be said about having hobbies just for the simple sake of doing something interesting and creative with no plans to ever make money from it. That is a very human activity with pure motivations. And quite far from the hustlebro attitudes in the typical X feed. We (techies and wierdos) used to freely share ideas with one another and build on each other's ideas and work. Now "everyone" holds their ideas close to their chest so they can later turn them into a course on gumroad! I'm not holding myself above any of this, I've been guilty of it as well. In any case, none of it changes your point which is - we still have a choice.
You just have to be outspoken and not give a damn if you lose some subscribers. I have been outspoken about Israel bombing innocents in Gaza and I lost more than a few subscribers and now things have leveled out, where as before it was growing. The point is not my position on that issue, the point is you can do good work here because it is thus far uncensored, but you have to be willing to take some hits when you say unpopular things, which has always been true in the real art world.
Yes. I have always tried to write and create things in an artsy, quirky, weird, way, and the early Internet supported that, especially via LiveJournal, which had a thriving community in the early 2000s of people pouring their hearts out for no other reason than they wanted to. I will soon aim to do the same here in a more focused way, but still plan to be writing about unconventional things from my own perspective.
I'm several months late to this, but to add my two cents (we are talking money, after all...)
You're right: money has changed things, fundamentally.
But let me suggest that it's in a slightly different way than you point out. I don't believe we've all suddenly become brainwashed by the possibility and allure of making money online. I believe it's the opposite: we've collectively been driven to the necessity of trying to make money online because of the massive fault lines that have appeared in the entire superstructure of work and livelihoods, at all levels, in all "western" countries, in virtually every industry.
Freelancing, gig economics and digital nomadism promised us freedom and opportunity and work-from-wherever-you-want. Many people have instead become debt slaves, scrabbling whatever meagre money they can make to try to make ends meet.
But of course, I could be wrong.
“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.
This is the way. As well as getting likeminded people into my own community via this substack I want to see other people do their own thing to. Like how in the punk days every city would have its own scene and local label and bands could take in all of these different scenes when they toured.
We need ecosystems rather than atomised individual artists trying to court favour with literal robots via platform algorithms.
In terms of self-published fiction, all the top “successful” gurus lean hard in the other direction: preaching the gospel of gaming the algorithm through advertising and the production of cookie-cutter units of entertainment. In short, here’s how I trick people into buying my ephemeral widgets.
They've poisoned the well. Which is why I'm diverting that and going out with my divining rod looking for fresh springs.
Sounds fascinating
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.
There's definitely a wider discussion to be had about how platforms use network effects and an even wider one still about how envy and mimetic desire (learning what to desire from what other desire) influence all of this. Big platforms could be engineered TODAY to make people scroll less and meet people more IRL. It's a relatively quick fix to make.
But as much as that discussion is interesting I think platforms will only change (if they ever do) as a panic reaction to people losing interest in them and going elsewhere. Hence this talk of collectives and private meeting places and creating art and all the rest of it.
With the STSC I'm trying to point the way. It will be imperfect. By necessity some engagement tactics and such will have to be used to draw people to a better way. But personally I can't stand by and moan about the state of the internet (and by extension culture) and do nothing.
Making an honest start- doing SOMETHING- is enough for now. I have faith it'll inspire a few others to follow in our footsteps.
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.
This is what it's all about. I always come back to the simple question 'why not me?'
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.
'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.'
I'm not sure either- at all- but I figure why don't I give it a go and find out.
'Not everything is or should be for everyone. Maybe the next time you make something great, don't put it on the internet.'
I've written reams of poetry that only one person has ever seen or ever will see, so I respect this viewpoint a tonne.
You make a lot of bold, interesting points in this reply. Really appreciated it. Thanks for sharing (😉)
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.
Well said. We need to look both higher and further ahead.
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
Rob sounds like someone who *gets it*.
Thanks Salman.
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.
I Love Northern Exposure. Got 'em all on DVD. I guess the spirit of Chris must've gone in. Maybe just a tiny bit of Adam too...
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.
I get this viewpoint, I really do. But the way I see it the internet- or this little corner of it at least- is something that I do have some modicum of influence in and control over so that's where I'm directing my energy. Because i figure, why not?
Sure. The internet is the place this eternal drama plays out at the moment. It is still the place to be.
Love this so much
Thanks. That's great to hear.
"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?
I forgot to add. The other problem with the internet, which I love by the way, is that creatives think far too much about what the audience wants. Do you think that Duchamp gave a shit about what the audience wanted when he stacked up a bunch of loos? We need creatives to take chances, and thinking about what the audience wants is not how you do that.
Exactly. 'Monetisation' is a real double edged sword. On the one hand the fact that someone who wouldn't get by the old gate keepers because of snobbery and class reasons can now make a living (you might argue that I am somewhat proof of this) but on the other hand it can make an artist play safe or pander to the audience to keep the monetisation train rolling.
Patrons of the arts are needed again, you could argue. Maybe the crypto rich? (maybe not) but to draw them in you need to make art cool again and part of that is a certain indifference on the artists part, a certain bloodymindedness and following your own artistic vision come what may.
Most consumers (we need to upgrade that word, but bear with me) don't know what they want from art until it is presented to them. On a certain level, if the audience is behind you then you are facing the wrong way.
Yes! Consumers (hate that word) don't know what they want. They never have. It's the role of the artist to force the viewer into a bit of discomfort. Art should not always be a pleasure. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I actually don't think so.
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.
Yes, pure practicality and utility has it's place but it certainly isn't everything. Or enough, even.
What is the grayscale setting and how do I do it? iPhone owner. I agree with nearly everything you are writing.
Here's a little primer on grayscale:
https://www.wired.com/story/grayscale-ios-android-smartphone-addiction/
Hope it helps.
I was wondering that too
"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).
This platform has flaws (only to be expected) but I've been saying for a while that to me it feels like the only game in town right now.
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.
I'm UK based. Email me at tjb_writer@protonmail.com about this salon thing, although tbh my life is pretty hectic rn so I can't make any promises sadly. Happy to help if I can though.
I'm in London. Would be nice to meet for a coffee and chinwag