Hate the Idle Pleasures

I consider myself an author. Some people might disagree because although the word literally refers to the "originator or creator of a work (especially literary)"—and I have created a fair few such works in my time—some people feel there's also a necessary cultural or professional association with the term. Since I am not predominantly preoccupied in the practice of publishing, some think I should be called a writer, instead. Perhaps even a blogger, as I've written more blogs than fiction. I recognize that this is accurate, but I don't see the need to doubt my own ability, I have authored many works... to me, this would be the same as calling me an artist, but in the opposite sense. I do believe that my writing is art, so the term is technically accurate; but unless you're creating visual art, the title feels self-important. To deny myself the term author, and only call myself writer, feels self-deprecating in the same way.

But, I don't just write, I also am a podcaster and I am very proud of what I have created for my podcast thus far. And, I have also created a series of videos on YouTube, in particular some let's plays that I enjoyed, so you might think of me as a youtuber, although I think that I don't focus on that enough to want to associate myself with the term. Just as I am also, technically, a poet. I have written several poems but that is not what I tend to create.

These terms are all applicable to me, and whilst I have my preferences and aversions I am perfectly accepting of these labels. But there is one label, which technically applies to me that I genuinely find disgusting. It is accurate, it is not derogatory, and it is somewhat common... but it's a term that makes my skin crawl.

I am NOT a content creator.

The Word of the Day is: 'DISCONTENT'

Discontent n. /dɪskənˈtɛnt/ 1. Dissatisfaction, especially when longing for better times or circumstances. 2. A discontented person; a malcontent. ♦v. 3. To deprive of contentment; to make uneasy; to dissatisfy. ♦adj. 4. Not content; dissatisfied.

This is a very popular term on the internet, and the purpose is pretty intuitive. Online, there are many websites for publishing all kinds of creative works. I'm not going to go into the full history of the internet, but it seems to my uneducated intuition like it started mostly with people creating their own websites and forums, but after the proliferation of search engines, social media, and wiki-style websites instead of servers for people to create and share, it became more of a platform, with more moderation which tried to cater its media to certain audiences, which has shifted mainstream online culture from one of innovation to one of consumption.

Now, I may be completely wrong... I just feel like this was either the cause or a major factor in the shift, but truth isn't based on vibes so I'll gladly be corrected if I'm wrong. Also, I don't want to imply that profit motive has never played a role online, it was always there—the internet isn't free, after all, and I'm not saying it should be—what I want to talk about is the culture that this has created as a result.

Because the internet does still have an abundance of amazing things. Some are harder to find, and sometimes, yes, you do have to pay for it because the world is burning, so its harder for creative-types to afford a house. But, regardless of how things have shifted, whilst there are both positives and negatives, there is still art to be appreciated. There are still lessons to be learned. Still Jokes to be jested. Songs to be streamed. Tales to be told...

But, all of this is amazing workis put in the same box and labelled as: CONTENT™

And as the creator of this work, you're not an artist, a musician, a comedian... you're just a "Content Creator". The manufacturer of this product.

One could argue that this is merely a semantic difference, to which I would grab you by the ears and scream—YES!!! This is SEMANTICS, but in case you were unaware, Semantics is the study of symbolism and meaning of language! And I am disgusted by the symbolic meaning behind this word.

Because symbolically, when you refer to art as "content", not only are you ignoring its artistic merit, but it creates this concept that the websites that "contain" this content are hollow pits that must be filled with, and the art is nothing more than material fill that space.

I know this is the case, because content and "art" actually don't mean the same thing anymore. Not just culturally, but literally. Originally, content was just "the stuff that was provided by these websites", in the same container/content relationship I described above. But, because of the way that audiences view this content... or, to use more of this dehumanizing terminology ...the way that this content is consumed by online consumers.
The attention economy has devalued forms of this art that are inefficient. It's only natural that if you watch a lot of videos, or listen to a lot of music, or read a lot of blogs, you will find some art less efficient than other art.

YouTube videos often have long introductory segments; tangential skits; or long outros with persistent reminders to "like, subscribe, comment & ring the bell". Blog posts will have introductions that detail the writer's personal life before getting into the topic at hand. News articles will trail off into inconsequential details. Art will be included alongside the various sketches that lead up to the final draft...

But all of this stuff is not seen as "content".

I want to make it clear, I'm not talking about slop. AI slop is called that because it's not art. And I don't mean in the pithy "low art/not worthy" sense that some people use to refer to art they dislike. No, I mean, literally, art is a work of creativity... AI is uncreative, it requires all that training data to plagiarize the work of artists just to generate whatever it was prompted to.
I'm also not talking about clickbait, content aggregators and time-wasters, although they probably accelerated this cultural shift by creating highly inefficient content.

What I am saying is that because the goal of the art is to entertain, with some element, be it a lesson, a punchline, a satisfying... note... shift? (I am not a musician, I'm sorry, I don't know what makes music sound pretty).
When people talk about a work of art having "less content" than another, they are saying that that work of art "fails to provide contents with that element", and in that sense is not content. But then, what is it? it's not "not art", because it was still created by the artist, so what is it...? Discontent?

In a sense, yes, because viewers/listeners/readers/consumers find it less satisfying. But, the reason why the word of the say is "discontent" isn't just for the sake of wordplay, but because this whole situation makes me feel discontent. When I look at the way that the internet, culturally, views art and artists... I feel hollow.

It reminds me of two things. Firstly, it reminds me of what I had to say about game design, how these overpriced, overproduced, overdesigned games have amazing work put into so much detail that you'll never see. Or, the concept of "filler episodes" in the anime/manga community especially, that see entire episodes or arcs of media as "skippable", because it lacks significant changes to the status quo of the narrative.

If you are consuming content... or, to use more humanizing language, if you are indulging in art, I'm not telling you that you are wrong to have certain preferences for the things you like. You are allowed to enjoy things, and I am not saying that you have to enjoy art in the same way as me. What I am saying is that not all art is about material content. I believe good art has purpose... but it may not be a single purpose.
And even if some work has measurable education, information, or activity, that doesn't mean that aspects which are more emotional, tangential or artistic are less valuable. To me, these are invaluable (to use yet more wordplay), they are a part of the creative process, and the artistic appreciation of that work.

Not only does this attitude devalue work, but it also devalues the worker. I haven't uploaded my podcast "to schedule" lately. I have seasonal affective depression, and I had over a fortnight of diminished mental health, followed by a lot of other tasks that had my undivided attention, so I am over a month behind my schedule...
And I was feeling bad because nothing new was being uploaded. But then one day, I shifted and stopped caring. Not because it doesn't matter, I'm still working on new episodes, but that whole time I was thinking that I needed to add consistent, new content to the podcast. But one day I realized

"But, the episodes that are already there are good."

And I immediately stopped feeling the pressure.  Not everyone has listened to my podcast before, and if anyone listens to podcasts the way I do, they can relisten to old episodes they enjoy it once again. Because art is not merely something to be consumed, and I am not a manufacturer, a content creator to pump out more product. Art is to be enjoyed, indulged in, appreciated...
I literally stopped thinking of myself as a content creator, and started thinking of myself as a podcaster, and I felt content.

I want you to think about that next time you think about, or watch the work of your favourite "content creator". They're not just a manufacturer or creator, they're an artist. And if that doesn't feel right, if calling their work "art" doesn't seem to fit, then that could be based on your culture, psychology, vocabulary... or, maybe you don't think their work has much value after all. In any case, you should explore that.

Until Next Time, I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and I have some art to create...