The current landscape of internet art, or, The industrialization of art

[Noxy]

Lately I have been thinking about why is it that I create way more art when interacting with small communities rather than, say, getting to the frontpage of reddit. This led me to think about clout, monetization, and a myriad of other things. I am not going to explore the myriad of other things here, instead focusing my effords on expressing my thoughts on how the modern internet landscape is effectively hostile for an artist.

---

Fame, and an unexplainable lack of fulfillment.​

---

The internet is the grounds for subversion of any systematic norm since no monetary gain is required to produce content, nor for said content to be seen. But the monetization of the internet has led to it becoming part of the systematic norm. By convincing people that anything they do must generate monetary value or otherwise it is pointless to make, they have made people put collars on themselves. This perfect medium of subversion that could never be absorbed by the system has been tamed by manipulating the minds of its very users.

The byproduct from this is a landscape where we do not produce raw artistic expression out of a desire for creation, but out of a desire for monetary gain.

To compensate for those that do not desire monetary gain, our modern systems have led to the creation of 'clout', and an aggravating critical lens has been put on the idea that if you do not have clout, you are nothing. On most social sites in general, if you have a following you have views, comments, and exposure. If you do not have a following, barely anyone is going to see your work, and the very few people that happen to see your work might just happen to be people that also dislike it.

But this is by far not the only actively hostile system in place subverting free artistic expression and free ideas; The constant glorification of having millions of views and likes only incentivizes dehumanization, the viewers of artwork cease to be human, to become robotic proxies that mechanically increase a number. Artists begin not to care about the viewer, but the numbers. Whilst numbers stroke the ego, real human interactions are the only that truly bring fulfillment.

But clout has damaged artists even more: To desire attention is seen as greed, since people often times confuse a genuine desire for human interaction with a desire for clout. Ironically, the artists that get the most human interaction, and clout, are those that learn to optimize their performance within the system's constraints; Following trends, formatting posts, having contacts, etc.

This absolutely devastating for small artists, and it is also a system that only benefits the system itself; By rewarding artists who follow trends and whatever's popular, the system safely increases its own value with minimal policing. It is akin to a music label that produces only pop music, controversy will hardly be a problem when it comes to the songs, they are formulaic crafts aimed at the lowest common denominator.

Successful artists are also not safe from this hostile environment: Once a workpiece from an artist becomes a success, they have one of three paths in front of them: To become a one-hit wonder, to fall into a repetitive cycle of content creation, or to fade into obscurity when pursuing artistic projects that have nothing to do with their most popular artwork.

The system has effectively tamed the internet and industrialized the creation of art: Thanks to the fact that content is being produced 24/7 by everyone, and that content has an expiration date of a few hours or days, art has become junk food, a mere industrialized product for instant-consumption. As an artist, either your art is content, and as such it is a hit within a few hours, or it isn't and it gets buried under a pile of content. But even if your art gets noticed, unless you keep producing content of similar quality forever, you will soon also fade into obscurity. Such is the modern art landscape, a Sisyphean task.

In conclusion, this landscape has led to newer artists hardly ever experiencing the joy of creation, or the truly rewarding experience that is creating art for a small community without any power exchange (money, clout) in-between. Artists hardly know what it is like to experience the playful back-and-forth between the community and the artist taking playful jabs at each other, and I believe this 'game' to be an absolutely essential part of art creation.

By never experiencing this, a new artist might believe the current landscape is the norm, and he will soon be starved of human interaction without even knowing what he is longing for. Thanks to this starvation, a new artist will quickly learn to turn his art into a product but whilst the product might become a success and provide millions of likes and comments, it will hardly replace the human interaction required to feel fulfilled.

Many people, when faced with this problem, like to quote that the point of art is to create art, and that a muse is the best inspiration there is to create artwork, essentially shifting the blame of a broken system atop the artist. While it is true that a muse is probably the best source of inspiration an artist can have, the search for a muse is akin to the search for enlightenment, not many people ever reach it. To tell an artist to 'just find a muse' is akin to telling a hobo to 'just become rich'.

Artists require human interaction, especially when just starting out. And I do not mean just 'positive reinforcement', real interactions may evoke feelings from the whole emotional spectrum; Be it love, hate, sadness, or anything else, this is the fuel for an artist to create and is what makes an artist grow. It is rare for an artist to start their career creating for the sake of creation, and to demand this of newer artists is just brutish.

---

What are your thoughts on the current landscape of internet art creation? Reading the whole post is not mandatory to post on the thread, it is fine.
I would like to also mention I do not intend to pose my ideas as truths or even informed opinions, they should be taken as a grain of salt like a very autistic friend going on a tangent about something he likes.
@Punp you asked for a ping in the last thread

 

[Aztek1337]

Art in the western internet will always be viewed through a hyper capitalist lens. I feel like most people don't appreciate art, they always expect an art piece to mean something or to be about something, it always has to be a commodity. Even a piece going viral makes the art piece become a commodity of the artists or the website it went viral on.

And honestly art has been mostly a commodity for most people consuming art in the west.

Most art that non-artists consume are ads, some current and old examples:
1. TV/YouTube Commercials
2. Magazine Ads
3. Radio Ads (jingles, etc...)
4. Syndicated comics in newspaper
4a. If your comic did good you'd get an animated TV show

It's a depressing symbiotic relationship artists have with "the system" so they can pay the bills to literally survive.

And now with AI and the rise of "AI artists" and companies dropping the 'dead weight" of real artists, it's going to be significantly harder for artists.

I guess what I am trying to say is that most artist will never become famous and in this modern world of extremes. and that is ok, just keep pouring your heart out into your pieces and let your passion speak.

 

[Mirchicom]

small communities make the art feel more meaningful to me personally, like yeah I could just draw current thing + boobs for infinite wealth generation but that's not really that fun or fulfilling to me.

 

[Some_porcupine]

Is this Capitalism ruining everything Thread №5?

 

[Noxy]

Is this Capitalism ruining everything Thread №5?

I wouldn't blame capitalism
The issue lays within the need to control the masses. This would be an issue in any system that requires the general population to be manipulated or influenced, the mechanisms might vary, but in essence it would work more or less the same on any system. The internet is just 'too free', any idea can spread like wildfire, and that's bad for any system.

Now, I don't really care much about systems and whatever, but I have been wondering why is it that producing art outside small communities is a lot less rewarding, this is an attempt to get to the root of it.

 

[Some_porcupine]

Now, I don't really care much about systems and whatever, but I have been wondering why is it that producing art outside small communities is a lot less rewarding, this is an attempt to get to the root of it.

because that goes since forever
all of them want to be warhol or rothko at first, but even starting is hard, thats why... they instead discourage everyone other to do so too (methinks), it is easier than anything else. they will be downers and always were, because "what for" etc., it is like with nerds vs "normies", rebels. rebels want praise too, but then they mock nerds for it because it is easier, than to do anything worthwhile than they can be praised for (or no?)...

 

[Noxy]

because that goes since forever
all of them want to be warhol or rothko at first, but even starting is hard, thats why... they instead discourage everyone other to do so too (methinks), it is easier than anything else. they will be downers and always were, because "what for" etc., it is like with nerds vs "normies", rebels. rebels want praise too, but then they mock nerds for it because it is easier, than to do anything worthwhile than they can be praised for (or no?)...

Indeed, it has been going on for a long time. In the past, it was even harder to get your art noticed because there were only a few mediums available outside of television, some galleries, posters, or street art. The internet has become a giant canvas where anything can be shared en masse, facilitating the sharing of art and ideas. This, of course, poses a problem when trying to control the spread of ideas within a population. This issue is not related to capitalism, but rather to the power struggle between those who hold influence over society and the general populace. It is a conflict of interests.

The rest of your post is quite accurate as well; it essentially reflects the "crab bucket mentality" where individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy are hesitant to let others rise above them. But, I would like to delve deeper into the reasons behind this crab mentality, exploring why it exists in some small collaborative communities but not in others.

My hypothesis, as mentioned in the original post, is that since attention acts as a form of currency (power), individuals mirror the societal power struggles on a smaller scale instead of cooperating with each other. This behavior is not a recent phenomenon. What is new, however, is the treatment of attention as a limited resource in today's society. Social media platforms contribute to this notion by ensuring that only a select few receive all the views each hour or day. They have succeeded in creating an artificial scarcity of something as seemingly trivial as 'views'.

 

[Ross_Я]

I wouldn't blame capitalism
The issue lays within the need to control the masses. This would be an issue in any system that requires the general population to be manipulated or influenced, the mechanisms might vary, but in essence it would work more or less the same on any system. The internet is just 'too free', any idea can spread like wildfire, and that's bad for any system.

Aside from the ones like anarchy, I guess, which doesn't require the general population to be influenced. But then, it is barely a system to begin with.
Either way, I still blame capitalism, because this is the system we have at hand, so fuck it.

Otherwise, thank you for your post. Awesome write up. Should probably be submitted into a zine or something. I'm agreeing with every word, especially these:

Many people, when faced with this problem, like to quote that the point of art is to create art, and that a muse is the best inspiration there is to create artwork, essentially shifting the blame of a broken system atop the artist. While it is true that a muse is probably the best source of inspiration an artist can have, the search for a muse is akin to the search for enlightenment, not many people ever reach it. To tell an artist to 'just find a muse' is akin to telling a hobo to 'just become rich'.

Artists require human interaction, especially when just starting out. And I do not mean just 'positive reinforcement', real interactions may evoke feelings from the whole emotional spectrum; Be it love, hate, sadness, or anything else, this is the fuel for an artist to create and is what makes an artist grow. It is rare for an artist to start their career creating for the sake of creation, and to demand this of newer artists is just brutish.

Fianlly I feel like someone actually understands it. First time I see this written out in the web.
If anything, 'positive reinforcement' barely does any good - it just serves to discourage. As does fair criticism. It's hard to find a fine line that could be used to encourage a new artist to continue in this environment, where seemingly everything is just another wall, and you have to do things fast, and they have to bring money, and you are either first or nothing, in the spotlight or out of it, without any in-between.
Therefore I would like to add one thing that I already wrote in the other part of the forum: if you try to be an artist, you should carfully evaluate just what you need, why you need it and how hard it will be and - most importantly - be not afraid to give up when things do not work out. The modern system is harsh to the artists, and you should not - should absolutely not - bash your head against the wall if things do not work out. It is simply not healthy.
Do not be afraid to give up and walk away. Maybe try again a year later. Or five years. Or ten. But if it doesn't work - just accept it. There's no shame in that. No shame in giving up, however much the current hustle culture might want to make you believe otherwise.

To desire attention is seen as greed, since people often times confuse a genuine desire for human interaction with a desire for clout.

Particularly interesting line. I never quite connected these two. Is this why attention-whoring is so ostracized? Is it because people automatically see the desire for attention as desire for money?

 

[Noxy]

Particularly interesting line. I never quite connected these two. Is this why attention-whoring is so ostracized? Is it because people automatically see the desire for attention as desire for money?

I don't know, I'm not familiar with modern attention whores. I know people began to dislike them because they were annoying, it's annoying when someone keeps making everything about themselves.

But, now that you mention attention whoring, it is important to note that some people disguise their thirst for clout as good intentions; this sort of thing only helps ostracize anyone that displays attention-seeking behaviors. People do not like to be fooled. Once bitten, twice shy.

It's kind of a silly point now that I think about it, because you cannot know if someone wants to stroke their ego, make friends, build a community, form a cult, or whatever...

 

[Some_porcupine]

But, now that you mention attention whoring, it is important to note that some people disguise their thirst for clout as good intentions; this sort of thing only helps ostracize anyone that displays attention-seeking behaviors. People do not like to be fooled. Once bitten, twice shy.

yeah... hate when that stuff like this happens! like... it is nice thing to do, but yeh, people basicallyy second-guessing the intentions, and after all, probably understanding the gro of the thing (prob) all wrong...