You make the point well, and that’s why I subscribe to your writing. Your specific voice and critical perspectives are apparent in all of the writing you do, even the articles you deem ‘content.’ It’s true that only some talented people will aggregate sufficient crowds to be considered successful, but that doesn’t change the actual work that’s being done by artists with smaller groups of followers. If the same body of work makes you a marquee name in one universe and a starving artist in another, the only difference is the response to the work. It all depends on how you define success for yourself.
I think the word ‘content’ devalues a person’s work. It spotlights that the work produced on Substack most benefits the owners of Substack. That can be true and also something writers can resist, in solidarity as you say.
I think "content" anonymizes the person's work, and highlights the way that it's alienated labor. Which is devaluing in a way, but can also emphasize the need for solidarity!
It sounds to me like you're saying that there is art and there is content and sometimes they're the same thing but sometimes they're two entirely separate things, and that one person can do both of them? But just as that might mean you can create "content" with no pretensions towards "art," you can create "art" that does not want to be "content." I mean, sometimes the medium IS the point, and the things "contained" are grist / fodder / etc., but sometimes the medium is just the platform the art is placed on.
Well...I'm more saying that art is created through labor, whatever you call it, and that maybe in some regards that's more important than whether it's referred to as "art" or not.
I see what you mean, but there is this weird thing with creating things and thinking of it as "labor" where that undermines what you're doing -- the best example I can think of is the crafting people in my family do: knit, crochet, sewing, and so on. My husband will spend weeks crocheting a toy or months on a hoodie as a gift for a family member, and people will inevitably say, "this is so amazing! you should sell these!" and he has to explain that if he were to make them to sell them he would no longer enjoy making them, which would mean that they're no longer worth all the long hours of tedious labor, while right now they are worth it because he's making them for something other than money, something worth more than money, and if he were to try to put a dollar figure on the labor it would somehow cheapen and ruin the whole thing. And, hey, no group of people has been unjustly denied the high title of "art" more than crafters, and certainly you can buy crocheted dolls and hoodies on etsy, but it's really not the same. So I guess I'm just saying that, from a certain perspective, there is really a difference, it's not just a status label, it kind of gets into the motivations and the relationships underlying the whole thing?
There are lots of things people do outside the market (cooking for example or walking the dog). Not everything is monetized labor under capitalism. There can be various questions about that (domestic labor as unmonetized labor is an issue a lot of feminists have talked about.) But I don't think most people would define "art" as only things you don't monetize (though they might complain about the way capitalism effects art.)
I guess the point is I think that the monetized labor/unmonetized labor discussion is somewhat different than the art/content one, though perhaps overlapping in some ways. Either way though, I'm definitely trying to monetize my writing! So I think the content creator label fits, and again I'm okay with that mostly because I think artists should in many cases be more willing to see themselves as laborers seeking solidarity, rather than just hoping success will solve the problems of labor.
Absolutely! :) And thank you for indulging my need to distinguish these things. I also think there are differing definitions of success, and some of those definitions don't involve money, but I'll save that one for another day. :D
Good stuff, and my brain went to a particular place in contemplating the distinction between art and content creation. I was reminded of the WPA, and a program back in the 1970s In California called CETA, both of which employed artists, through government programs, to...create content, I guess? And from which, if memory serves, some famous content creators/artists emerged, and/or remained employed during hard times, or something of that nature. And were at the time, I presume, by virtue of the government's largess, able to express their talents for a paycheck as a mere worker. And this, at a time, when socialism was a bright light in many people's heads, organizing and fighting for unions was a major project throughout the country, and, thanks to Clifford Odets and many other content creators of the time, worker with a capital W was a kind of iconic concept. Romanticized, even.
I know artist collectives are a thing, but it seemed like, at the time, that collectivization of artists into not just groupings with their fellow artists, but into the great swath of workers in general, seemed like the ideal of that mindset. That artists were workers just like everybody else, and that, somehow, we were all stronger for this.
the WPA is a great example! yes, govt provided funds for national artwork as part of great depression programs; a lot of famous artists were employed for sure.
I think there is a middle ground that covers group success. Suppose you are an iron worker building a bridge. You won’t win any awards for the design, and you are just getting paid for your labor, but if you and your fellow workers build a bridge that lasts, and do it safely, so that all of your fellow workers go home to their families uninjured, that’s a success to be proud of, even though it’s just a job.
This has got me thinking about how icky it felt when, during the early days of the pandemic, the administrators at my university kept referring to the work of teaching faculty like me as “content delivery”. Like...sure, there is content that I cover in my classes, and I suppose you can say that I am delivering that content to my students, but that it such an impoverished perspective on what the work of teaching actually is.
You make the point well, and that’s why I subscribe to your writing. Your specific voice and critical perspectives are apparent in all of the writing you do, even the articles you deem ‘content.’ It’s true that only some talented people will aggregate sufficient crowds to be considered successful, but that doesn’t change the actual work that’s being done by artists with smaller groups of followers. If the same body of work makes you a marquee name in one universe and a starving artist in another, the only difference is the response to the work. It all depends on how you define success for yourself.
I think the word ‘content’ devalues a person’s work. It spotlights that the work produced on Substack most benefits the owners of Substack. That can be true and also something writers can resist, in solidarity as you say.
I think "content" anonymizes the person's work, and highlights the way that it's alienated labor. Which is devaluing in a way, but can also emphasize the need for solidarity!
It sounds to me like you're saying that there is art and there is content and sometimes they're the same thing but sometimes they're two entirely separate things, and that one person can do both of them? But just as that might mean you can create "content" with no pretensions towards "art," you can create "art" that does not want to be "content." I mean, sometimes the medium IS the point, and the things "contained" are grist / fodder / etc., but sometimes the medium is just the platform the art is placed on.
Well...I'm more saying that art is created through labor, whatever you call it, and that maybe in some regards that's more important than whether it's referred to as "art" or not.
I see what you mean, but there is this weird thing with creating things and thinking of it as "labor" where that undermines what you're doing -- the best example I can think of is the crafting people in my family do: knit, crochet, sewing, and so on. My husband will spend weeks crocheting a toy or months on a hoodie as a gift for a family member, and people will inevitably say, "this is so amazing! you should sell these!" and he has to explain that if he were to make them to sell them he would no longer enjoy making them, which would mean that they're no longer worth all the long hours of tedious labor, while right now they are worth it because he's making them for something other than money, something worth more than money, and if he were to try to put a dollar figure on the labor it would somehow cheapen and ruin the whole thing. And, hey, no group of people has been unjustly denied the high title of "art" more than crafters, and certainly you can buy crocheted dolls and hoodies on etsy, but it's really not the same. So I guess I'm just saying that, from a certain perspective, there is really a difference, it's not just a status label, it kind of gets into the motivations and the relationships underlying the whole thing?
There are lots of things people do outside the market (cooking for example or walking the dog). Not everything is monetized labor under capitalism. There can be various questions about that (domestic labor as unmonetized labor is an issue a lot of feminists have talked about.) But I don't think most people would define "art" as only things you don't monetize (though they might complain about the way capitalism effects art.)
I guess the point is I think that the monetized labor/unmonetized labor discussion is somewhat different than the art/content one, though perhaps overlapping in some ways. Either way though, I'm definitely trying to monetize my writing! So I think the content creator label fits, and again I'm okay with that mostly because I think artists should in many cases be more willing to see themselves as laborers seeking solidarity, rather than just hoping success will solve the problems of labor.
Absolutely! :) And thank you for indulging my need to distinguish these things. I also think there are differing definitions of success, and some of those definitions don't involve money, but I'll save that one for another day. :D
Good stuff, and my brain went to a particular place in contemplating the distinction between art and content creation. I was reminded of the WPA, and a program back in the 1970s In California called CETA, both of which employed artists, through government programs, to...create content, I guess? And from which, if memory serves, some famous content creators/artists emerged, and/or remained employed during hard times, or something of that nature. And were at the time, I presume, by virtue of the government's largess, able to express their talents for a paycheck as a mere worker. And this, at a time, when socialism was a bright light in many people's heads, organizing and fighting for unions was a major project throughout the country, and, thanks to Clifford Odets and many other content creators of the time, worker with a capital W was a kind of iconic concept. Romanticized, even.
I know artist collectives are a thing, but it seemed like, at the time, that collectivization of artists into not just groupings with their fellow artists, but into the great swath of workers in general, seemed like the ideal of that mindset. That artists were workers just like everybody else, and that, somehow, we were all stronger for this.
the WPA is a great example! yes, govt provided funds for national artwork as part of great depression programs; a lot of famous artists were employed for sure.
I think there is a middle ground that covers group success. Suppose you are an iron worker building a bridge. You won’t win any awards for the design, and you are just getting paid for your labor, but if you and your fellow workers build a bridge that lasts, and do it safely, so that all of your fellow workers go home to their families uninjured, that’s a success to be proud of, even though it’s just a job.
Sure! I think there are lots of ways to take pride in your work without the kind of personal credit successful artists get.
This has got me thinking about how icky it felt when, during the early days of the pandemic, the administrators at my university kept referring to the work of teaching faculty like me as “content delivery”. Like...sure, there is content that I cover in my classes, and I suppose you can say that I am delivering that content to my students, but that it such an impoverished perspective on what the work of teaching actually is.