You may have seen this tweet recently.
While the sentiment is noble, the author seems to miss the point that there actually should be a distinction for art made with the primary goal of pleasing the algorithm and/or making as much money as possible. Of course, some people are going to mistake one for the other once in awhile but erasing the word "content" from our vocabulary only diminishes the fact that in the age of centralized algorithmic social media, artists are massively incentivized to simply get as many likes as possible.
Art may not, and should not, have a formal definition but even a young child is capable of distinguishing it. It seems like a riddle at first, but the fine line between artistry and craftsmanship is palpable when you compare an innovator to their copycats. Art is everything, but not everything is good art.
No artist wants to be put in a box, but many are sealing themselves off from their full expressive potential by chasing trends and engagement. What I don’t understand is, why are so many artists more motivated to grow their social media as much as possible than to make art they’re truly passionate about? I'm not saying financial stability isn't something worth striving for but everyone knows money can be made through a multitude of avenues. It might be time that our society starts normalizing being a hobbyist, so people don't feel so much pressure to capitalize off their creativity, especially when they're in the early stages of training where it's necessary to reference the greats.
I think the main difference between a hobbyist and a professional in any field is whether or not one earns enough money to subsist one's lifestyle off of the earnings of one's field, which in this case is art. For artists, being servants to the algorithm is a prerequisite to quitting their 'full time jobs', which is understandable, but is unfortunate as it devalues their commitment to posting quality work in their own terms. But looking back, this has always been the case. Quality actors will star in trashy action movies, famous painters often did contract work for royal portraits and stand up comedians regularly have to take corporate gigs to keep the bills paid.
Great post Eliana! I think there should be a clear distinguish between entertainment and art. All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art. Entertainment is made for algorithm and money and the market, while art may be more personal and less entertaining. Content doesn't have to be entertaining, nor artistic, so I don't quite understand why anyone would put these two together. However, entertainment, content and art are all abstract and personal vocabularies when it comes to comparing, as there's no clear definition of either one, and what some people believe is art, may be total bs for others. In that sense, vocabularies may not be as important as what's being created.