5 ms·

I feel like the challenge for creators is less the "social media Orwellian dystopian hellscape etc" and more that virtually everything you can contribute has be

I feel like the challenge for creators is less the "social media Orwellian dystopian hellscape etc" and more that virtually everything you can contribute has been done better by someone else before you.

fullshark 5y ago
And you can learn that fact with just a few clicks of some buttons on your magical view screen.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ehnto 5y ago
Which is an example of the "best or why bother" attitude of exceptionalism the internet can breed, which can affect people in some surprising areas. Even something like grass roots motorsport. Everyone's too busy in their garages trying to build the absolute peak performance car, before even doing a single lap, because they think they can't have fun until their car is as good as all the others on Instagram. There is so much fun to be had in the space between 0% and 100%, and some don't even get started until they're confident they're already at 95% in the comfort of their own home.
- civilized 5y ago
  Yes. We're going to have to figure out how to manage this side-effect, because the delight of having the best always at our fingertips isn't going to go away.
handrous 5y ago
Vonnegut wrote about this a few times. It seems to have been something that bugged him. The short version of his complaint is that mass media, generally, have wiped out the social value of all kinds of moderate artistic talent—for example, fewer people may learn to plink out some holiday tunes on the family upright for everyone to sing along with, because you can just put on the radio, or Spotify. Live storytelling, or being good at dramatically reading from books (yes, people used to sit around and do that for entertainment)? Small, local theater? All replaced by radio plays and TV. And so on. Basically, recording and mass broadcast means moderate talents lose nearly everything (as far as social, or even monetary, value of their skills) and discourage people from developing those talents in the first place, because those technologies place them in competition with people who are at the top edge of human achievement in those areas—including dead ones. It's broadened how many people get to experience those top-tier talents, and how often, but practically obliterated a formerly-major component of how people related to one another, socially. The Internet has changed this a bit. Some folks have responded to the problem by digging hard into a niche and taking their act online, because you can succeed in an really tiny niche while being only pretty-good at something, since there are so many people that a niche with nearly-zero audience can still reach a lot of people, considered over the entire globe—think filk, or steampunk-themed music, or doing furry art on commission, or something like that. But in person value among their actual social circle, and among family, remains low, because Spotify and TV and Netflix et c. exist.
- chartpath 5y ago
  This resonates with me a lot as someone who gave up music and university for programming in my early 20s. And yet, mediocre content abounds in the media. How should that be explained?
  - alehlopeh 5y ago
    I think it’s because content by definition is mediocre, otherwise it would be called art.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >I think it’s because content by definition is mediocre, otherwise it would be called art. Even if it's mediocre, it can still be art IMHO. Rather, I think it's just that Sturgeon's Law[0] applies to most things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
    - pkdpic 5y ago
      Excellent point / mic drop : ) But one thought this thread is provoking is related to this well-intentioned but self-destructive (imho) 20th century cultural narrative that talent as a prerequisite for art creates a tyranny where certain people are allowed to express themselves with dignity while the vast majority are not. Sometimes I like this narrative, sometimes I hate it. But regardless it undeniably had the effect of leveling the playing field while retaining the same old gilded-age toxic celebrity hierarchy, which simply seems to have had the effect of letting the wealthy and powerful silently dominate cultural / artistic production, which this thread already started to touch on a bit. Ie, the now fairly ubiquitous experience of walking into an art museum, seeing a blank canvas propped on the floor next to a neon light. Thinking "Anyone could make that so whys this person rich and famous for it?" Shrugging, leaving and not going back to an art museum for another decade. I enjoy that kind of art in the right context but it clearly has a destructive effect on peoples natural ability to care about art and have a healthy creative practice themselves.
  - handrous 5y ago

fullshark 5y ago

And you can learn that fact with just a few clicks of some buttons on your magical view screen.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ehnto 5y ago

Which is an example of the "best or why bother" attitude of exceptionalism the internet can breed, which can affect people in some surprising areas. Even something like grass roots motorsport. Everyone's too busy in their garages trying to build the absolute peak performance car, before even doing a single lap, because they think they can't have fun until their car is as good as all the others on Instagram. There is so much fun to be had in the space between 0% and 100%, and some don't even get started until they're confident they're already at 95% in the comfort of their own home.

civilized 5y ago
Yes. We're going to have to figure out how to manage this side-effect, because the delight of having the best always at our fingertips isn't going to go away.

handrous 5y ago

Vonnegut wrote about this a few times. It seems to have been something that bugged him. The short version of his complaint is that mass media, generally, have wiped out the social value of all kinds of moderate artistic talent—for example, fewer people may learn to plink out some holiday tunes on the family upright for everyone to sing along with, because you can just put on the radio, or Spotify. Live storytelling, or being good at dramatically reading from books (yes, people used to sit around and do that for entertainment)? Small, local theater? All replaced by radio plays and TV. And so on. Basically, recording and mass broadcast means moderate talents lose nearly everything (as far as social, or even monetary, value of their skills) and discourage people from developing those talents in the first place, because those technologies place them in competition with people who are at the top edge of human achievement in those areas—including dead ones. It's broadened how many people get to experience those top-tier talents, and how often, but practically obliterated a formerly-major component of how people related to one another, socially. The Internet has changed this a bit. Some folks have responded to the problem by digging hard into a niche and taking their act online, because you can succeed in an really tiny niche while being only pretty-good at something, since there are so many people that a niche with nearly-zero audience can still reach a lot of people, considered over the entire globe—think filk, or steampunk-themed music, or doing furry art on commission, or something like that. But in person value among their actual social circle, and among family, remains low, because Spotify and TV and Netflix et c. exist.

chartpath 5y ago
This resonates with me a lot as someone who gave up music and university for programming in my early 20s. And yet, mediocre content abounds in the media. How should that be explained?
- alehlopeh 5y ago
  I think it’s because content by definition is mediocre, otherwise it would be called art.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I think it’s because content by definition is mediocre, otherwise it would be called art. Even if it's mediocre, it can still be art IMHO. Rather, I think it's just that Sturgeon's Law[0] applies to most things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
  - pkdpic 5y ago
    Excellent point / mic drop : ) But one thought this thread is provoking is related to this well-intentioned but self-destructive (imho) 20th century cultural narrative that talent as a prerequisite for art creates a tyranny where certain people are allowed to express themselves with dignity while the vast majority are not. Sometimes I like this narrative, sometimes I hate it. But regardless it undeniably had the effect of leveling the playing field while retaining the same old gilded-age toxic celebrity hierarchy, which simply seems to have had the effect of letting the wealthy and powerful silently dominate cultural / artistic production, which this thread already started to touch on a bit. Ie, the now fairly ubiquitous experience of walking into an art museum, seeing a blank canvas propped on the floor next to a neon light. Thinking "Anyone could make that so whys this person rich and famous for it?" Shrugging, leaving and not going back to an art museum for another decade. I enjoy that kind of art in the right context but it clearly has a destructive effect on peoples natural ability to care about art and have a healthy creative practice themselves.
- handrous 5y ago