This is a topic I have wanted to write about for a while now, and something that seems to be of greater importance each and every day. So, while I am far from an expert on the subject matter, I will attempt to do my best at unraveling this issue.
So let’s start off simply: art has long been intertwined with the notion of commercialism. While there is much great art made for no other purpose than its own existence, that does very little to sustain the livelihood of the artist or fund further art. As such, creating art as something to be sold or purchased has been ingrained for centuries (whether it be an oil painting or the latest episode of The Walking Dead). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this concept, as I firmly believe that artists should be compensated for their efforts. However, it does tend to lead to the inevitable conclusion that such art could also, rightly, be classified as a product. On its face, there is nothing wrong or incorrect with this assessment, as art created with the intention to be sold would indeed fit that definition (even if it is a bit limiting). That said, it is exactly those things which such limits miss that makes art different from other “products” such as soap or a luxury sedan (more on this point a bit later).
Once the notion of art became commercialized on the level of the individual artist, there is little surprise that businesses and corporations would soon become involved (we take it for granted today, but large entities such as that were not always the primary creators of artistic works). Despite (or perhaps because of) their involvement, the variety and availability of different forms of art exploded. Films, television, books, music, paintings, photography, and illustration – each was given access to a potential audience that until that point in human history was unheard of. The limiting factor of artistic success was no longer in being able to reach a sizable audience, but rather with the quantity of art being created. Much like any other product, the more SKUs on the shelves the higher the opportunity for profit. Film studios began churning out tons of films, with very little regard to quality control – after all, the model was predicated on getting a few “hits” from every batch, not with each film being a success in its own right.
This model, however, was still limiting. Films, while successful ones might play for years, all had a shelf-life. Television shows were “one and done” efforts used to bring in immediate advertising dollars. They needed a way to not only continue to produce and easily distribute even greater quantities of “product,” but to monetize them for longer. Then came home media – this amazing advancement allowed such media producers to sell older films and television shows to the consumer again – but this time on a more personal level. No longer did they need to worry about the length of time such media could be profitable, as that time had become indefinite. Still, however, there were limitations – buying such media was not particularly cheap, and many consumers were limited in their available space to store such things. Enter streaming. Now, studios could sell (or better yet, rent) content to consumers directly (in perpetuity) with no worries about inflated costs or finding somewhere to place the disc (it also gave content producers the ability to effectively redefine what it means for a consumer to “own” media – for the worse – but that is a discussion for another time). While all this was going on, so was the expansion of the quantity of media produced – broadcast, cable, premium, streaming originals, YouTube, films, podcasts, blogs, books, audiobooks, plays, music, music videos, video games – the sheer scope is astonishing.
And now we arrive at it – that dreaded word that has been the topic of such fervent debate: content. On its face it is fairly innocuous – it is a broad term to describe the media available to consumers. It is used by both the public and the “content creators” themselves. And therein lies the first problem – note the use of the phrase “content creator” and not “artist.” That’s not me trying to stir controversy, but rather an accurate reflection of the current media landscape. The notion that such individuals are more noteworthy for (broadly) “making things,” rather than making “art” (never mind the lack of specificity regarding the medium) is one that goes further towards downplaying the creative effort required in bringing something to life. It sounds more like a position on a factory floor than of someone attempting to tell a story or connect with an audience. It also separates the artist from those that enjoy it (in today’s landscape, rebranded as “consume it”) – they are no more than a “creator,” an inhuman production line spitting out stuff to be used (like a toothbrush or a luxury sedan – told you it would come back). But art isn’t something to be used or consumed – it is something to be enjoyed and experienced. It is a connection between artist and spectator, between viewer and the medium itself.
A system such as our current one, using broad and impersonal terms when discussing these things, inevitably leads to the devaluation of the art in question. It doesn’t matter whether something took 5 minutes to create or 5 years, if the creator poured their heart into the work or if it’s made for an easy buck – all things are equal and all are merely “content” to feed the machine. Where once the problem was for artists to find a way to profit by reaching a large enough audience, now it is finding a way to even be seen in a field so crowded (and ever-growing). No sooner is a piece of “content” released, than it is buried under the next thing. The law of averages returns from the aforementioned days of yore – not all things (or even most) need to be good as long as it produces the occasional hit. The larger a quantity of “content” a provider can achieve, the greater the perceived value of their service. Art ceases to be an end in and of itself, but rather a means to the end of keeping someone subscribed. The content itself is disposable, unimportant even. Stories only matter insofar as they are useful – look no farther than the increased production and cancellation numbers from all providers (Netflix an easy example). The intrinsically personal nature of creating and experiencing art has been replaced with a throwaway culture of “more, more, more.”
So is it all doom and gloom? Are we forever damned to a world of ever-growing callousness in the space of artistic endeavors? No – of course not. Despite the ocean of competition, there has never been a time when it has been more possible for anyone to create art across any medium and share it with the world. The absurd amount of media produced, and to a certain extent the disregard for quality, has allowed for the creation and sharing of stories that would have never been allowed to exist in the past. Niche or otherwise non-mainstream concepts have been given the opportunity for find and connect with people that they might never otherwise have. While I do think the language currently in use both devalues and trivializes the art it represents, I cannot deny that the movement overall has been a seismic positive shift in connecting artists with more potential viewers. I only worry that, alongside this increase in quantity of engagement, we are simultaneously losing the quality it once had – people no sooner “consume” one piece of “content” before moving immediately on to the next – no reflection, no deeper connection. That said, the great thing about art is that it is ever-evolving. Just because our climate today is not as some of us might wish it, it is all but assured that the next big wave of change is coming. It wasn’t all that long ago that Netflix’s business model revolved around mailing DVDs to your house – now they produce more original “content” than nearly any other single source. Who’s to say what’s next?
I’ll leave you with this: while terms may come and go (content, product, media), art as concept is here to stay. From the first cave paintings to those mediums not yet invented, humans will always strive to tell stories and express themselves – they will always strive to connect with and entertain each other. As long as that is true, “art” and “artists” will always define us more aptly than “content” and “creators.”
Pingback: The Importance of Physical Media - Triple Zero Films