i want people to stop using the word "content" to mean literally every kind of work or any kind of creative endeavour that was persisted in any kind of medium
And, btw, i realize that we used to have a different word for the same concept: whether it was a song, a newspaper article, a theater play, it was "a piece"
so why does "content" feel so much worse?
@meena perhaps because 'content' declared itself contained, putting the real emphasis not on the 'piece' as an element of some communicative whole, but on the box. The thing doing the containing is implicitly centralized.
A piece implies that it is a piece of something. Most commonly "art" or "music" (which is implicit.)
Content as a descriptor carries implications of ... sameness? Of unimportance.
A piece is unique. Singular. Content is a grey blob consuming all it sees.
this relates to a point where I diverge from some criticism of markets, since the term "commodity" in these circles is used for any thing or relation that has fallen into being bought & sold.
those who deign to consider markets in more detail differentiate unique, branded, or proprietary goods from goods traded more fungibly, adhering perhaps to a standard, but with indifference as to source or supplier
'content' fits into this last category, as if it were FCOJ.
honestly, I've never liked the term "piece" either
because it felt like it always went along with people assuming you could 'make it' as an artist if you just advertised yourself enough and elbowed people for boosts enough, and you didn't have to first overthrow the attention economy or even capitalism to have any chance
that's pretty subjective,
but it was enough for me to stop talking about being 'an artist' versus 'a socialist myth creator / game dev'
it sometimes feels to me like the entire word "artist" (though not necessarily the concept, just the way the word is used in certain contexts) has been subsumed by capitalism
especially when we think about things like, the RIAA and them calling musicians that succeed with them 'the artists', but this masking a whole bunch of other musicians who can't succeed this way, & RIAA insisting we need copyright just to 'protect' the few musicians useful to capitalists
@meena I think "content" is very much like "stuff": too general and vague to be good.
"Look at all this stuff!" and "Look at all this content!" read pretty similarly: no clue what it actually is, and not good enough for anything to stand out and get individual mention
@meena i dislike ‘content’ because it is the terminology of the service provider and the marketer: here is my website/platform/app/whatever, and it has precisely named parts that pertain to its function, but what it acts upon is just ‘content’. it’s an indiscerning term as to the role it fills, the uses it has, and the place it has in its respective context.
a monet landscape and some racist dipshit’s cartoon: both content. a declaration of independence, a status change from ‘married’ to ‘single’, targeted abuse, a poem: all content.
content is reduced to whatever its purpose is for the service that shovels it. engagement, likes, click-throughs, seconds watched…
for artists, makers, craftspeople, humans, to call their art, builds, work, diary entries, conversation, vacation memories ‘content’ is to grovel at the feet of the content-shoveler who is nothing without the people creating meaningful things.
for afficionados, fans, ‘the interested’ to call the objects of their interest ‘content’ expresses a casual disrespect for those who made the things you are interested in, in favour of those shoveling it your way.
to me, ‘content’ strips away every aspect that makes things meaningful, and elevates its role as an utterly exchangeable piece of cargo in the machinations of some (usually) for-profit mill.
and we somehow let us be tricked into regarding this term as a smart or sophisticated one.
I heard a phrase today that I hope to never hear uttered without introspection ever again, "a content creator I enjoyed as a child"
@meena In my head, "content" feels very... Depersonalized? Artists make pieces of art, but anyone can make content. That sort of angle.
Perhaps 'piece' is a good word for some creative works because it implies that each work is a part of a greater whole.
Relatedly, despite a lifetime professionally in the 'arts', I hesitate to use terms like 'artist' and 'art' to describe myself and what I do.
Such terms are often laden with ego and status. More worryingly, they suggest that something as intrinsically human as creative expression is only available to a special class of person.
@meena to me, it has the connotation that the author might find it important in abstract ('content is king'), but doesn't know, understand nor care what the content actually *is* as long as it draws potential customers to the platform: it is to be 'consumed' by 'other people'.
@meena it also reminds of the unfortunate obsession with creating 'personal brands' by publishing 'stuff', which leads to people repeating the same tidbits of information on their sites instead of working together on great shared resources or linking to actually-great articles on the topic.
@meena because content is the language used to describe a whole host of completely or nearly unpaid creative labor we do for the new oligarchs
A place for trans makers, coders, tinkerers and dreamers.