I really enjoyed your article, but what spoke to me was specifically the line about “work that was altered by its own making”. Because to me, that is really the distinction that matters. Not sincerity versus cynicism. But whether the thing being made changed the person making it.
Your essay made me think about conscious ownership the same way I think about serious art. Both require you to bring something. Both leave you altered if they're working. And both get buried by systems optimized for the frictionless response.
I agree with you - I refuse to be optimized either.
Yes, because no matter formally prepared an artist is towards their craft, there is always going to be a pinch of individuality. And the experiences, as modest as they are, compound to something no objective checklist can ever capture. This is precisely why AI is never going to be good at art, it can merely create stimulating content even at the exponential growth rate. An unconscious holistic approach is what attaches human significance to both art and the perception of art.
I sat with this post for days; the depth demanded tithe.
I agree that, by design, contemporary platform algorithms incentivize consumption of a distilled product over the ideal of *art as process*, we can state this without making qualitative judgements about either, but I am not convinced that this is completely new.
The technology is new; I see with you how the "...current moment has collapsed [the time] interval," but I also see these algorithms as the latest (and scariest) iteration in the long history of narrative and power.
When I look to history, I don't see the durability of art so much as the pattern of durability in institutions. Modern algorithm wars mirror so many intense political and theological battles of the past, which directly influenced patronage of monumental art. I have a great appreciation of the satirical genius that Michelangelo was.
For me personally, interaction in these spaces is a constant test of agency. Sometimes friction feels like waste rather than process. That's a relationship with time problem for me, not a problem with technology.
I appreciated your post, and your beautiful writing. It led me down many interesting rabbit holes and gave me an idea for a new story about an artisan glass blower. I also wrote a depressing poem about dead birds but that one will stay off the algorithm.
Bravo well done! It speaks to so much that is happening across different art spaces. It also I think sums up what a lot of individuals here feel or have a hard time verbalizing. I would also look at this piece and say a wonderful addition to it would be what about the artist themself! We've seen so many artists who struggled to get noticed become famous and popular a decade later and then are forced to churn out a cheaper or quicker version of their art at alarming rates just to feed the masses.
They as well are undoing this shift and by design of the system eventually lose themselves. One other note I had on this piece which means a lot to me is when you speak about the community and what is easily felt or understood and I think that as well deserves deeper exploration. When you get into smaller communities if you don't move with the grain, it becomes even more apparent in your work. Consider the gay community, I write about experience lived, what you gain and lose by forcing yourself into the world (or removing yourself) and the slow exposure to your own self over time, yet you look at booktok, bookstagram or even popular pages here; and see its sexualized romance or living stereotypes. Not to say we don't need that and deserve to enjoy that, but we lose so much to blindness when groups only try and look for one thing.
Anyways I could babble on this for hours, so thank you for giving me some thought-provoking content with my morning coffee!
I really enjoyed your article, but what spoke to me was specifically the line about “work that was altered by its own making”. Because to me, that is really the distinction that matters. Not sincerity versus cynicism. But whether the thing being made changed the person making it.
Your essay made me think about conscious ownership the same way I think about serious art. Both require you to bring something. Both leave you altered if they're working. And both get buried by systems optimized for the frictionless response.
I agree with you - I refuse to be optimized either.
Yes, because no matter formally prepared an artist is towards their craft, there is always going to be a pinch of individuality. And the experiences, as modest as they are, compound to something no objective checklist can ever capture. This is precisely why AI is never going to be good at art, it can merely create stimulating content even at the exponential growth rate. An unconscious holistic approach is what attaches human significance to both art and the perception of art.
Amen!
I sat with this post for days; the depth demanded tithe.
I agree that, by design, contemporary platform algorithms incentivize consumption of a distilled product over the ideal of *art as process*, we can state this without making qualitative judgements about either, but I am not convinced that this is completely new.
The technology is new; I see with you how the "...current moment has collapsed [the time] interval," but I also see these algorithms as the latest (and scariest) iteration in the long history of narrative and power.
When I look to history, I don't see the durability of art so much as the pattern of durability in institutions. Modern algorithm wars mirror so many intense political and theological battles of the past, which directly influenced patronage of monumental art. I have a great appreciation of the satirical genius that Michelangelo was.
For me personally, interaction in these spaces is a constant test of agency. Sometimes friction feels like waste rather than process. That's a relationship with time problem for me, not a problem with technology.
I appreciated your post, and your beautiful writing. It led me down many interesting rabbit holes and gave me an idea for a new story about an artisan glass blower. I also wrote a depressing poem about dead birds but that one will stay off the algorithm.
Bravo well done! It speaks to so much that is happening across different art spaces. It also I think sums up what a lot of individuals here feel or have a hard time verbalizing. I would also look at this piece and say a wonderful addition to it would be what about the artist themself! We've seen so many artists who struggled to get noticed become famous and popular a decade later and then are forced to churn out a cheaper or quicker version of their art at alarming rates just to feed the masses.
They as well are undoing this shift and by design of the system eventually lose themselves. One other note I had on this piece which means a lot to me is when you speak about the community and what is easily felt or understood and I think that as well deserves deeper exploration. When you get into smaller communities if you don't move with the grain, it becomes even more apparent in your work. Consider the gay community, I write about experience lived, what you gain and lose by forcing yourself into the world (or removing yourself) and the slow exposure to your own self over time, yet you look at booktok, bookstagram or even popular pages here; and see its sexualized romance or living stereotypes. Not to say we don't need that and deserve to enjoy that, but we lose so much to blindness when groups only try and look for one thing.
Anyways I could babble on this for hours, so thank you for giving me some thought-provoking content with my morning coffee!