Gonna be a whole generation of artists and musicians who think their art isn't good because of the way algorithms work online
Used to be that great art attracts great attention. However I see many bands who are amazing who get something like 2 plays on youtube, or their tweets sink without a trace. I wonder how many of these young kids are gonna give up their artform because of this?
This isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s been a problem for decades. The problem just looks different now, is all.
But here’s the thing. The best artists don’t make art for the attention, they make art for themselves and other people just appreciate it as well. So those artists aren’t going to give up, because it was never about the fame for them.
I imagine this commercial/personal art dichotomy has existed ever since the first time someone paid for art. Like how there’s always been folk music played around campfires in contrast to the operas and orchestras where the local lord’s funding goes.
I mean, sure, you can blame this batch on the internet and necessary SEO, but good artists being skipped over is nothing new. There were days before the internet (and even after it’s implementation, but before the ecosystem you are talking about existed) where artists and band with immense talent were lost to time because things didn’t line up just right for them to be successful. Bands played gig after gig, sending their singles to record companies and nothing happened. Just being good at a thing has never been enough. That’s just step 1. Often, the right person has to see you, and that person has to be in the position to elevate you at the time. Maybe that industry guy was just in a bad mood that day and wasn’t enjoying any music and you just got a bad night.
And we have examples of visual artists dying in obscurity only for their art to hit it big after their death. It’s a whole trope in the art world. Van Gogh is probably the most famous. He died penniless having only sold a single painting while alive, and that was to his brother, a frickin art dealer! He even had a guy on the inside and couldn’t make it. Impressionism was a new school, but not exactly empty. As a genre it basically got it’s own museum in the Musée d’Orsay, and still, one of the greatest artists in the genre (and probably all art) couldn’t get a fucking break. Talent is often not enough. Luck and timing have always been more important.
As someone who has been in the professional music scene for over a decade trying to ‘break through’ and has seen many others trying the same, sometimes it’s about how good people are at their instrument/songwriting/art but more often it’s about luck and what connections and/or funding you have. I’ve seen people who are truly creative and work hard build impressive success from basically nothing. I also know plenty of people who are just as creative and hardworking spin their wheels and get nowhere. Frankly, i suspect this has always been the case. Ability alone has very very rarely been enough to attract great attention. In the stories of most big names you know there is something somewhere along the way where they either were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time or just come from enough money to be able to give it their full attention for years, and even then they usually need some other kind of luck.
My point is not to discourage though, but rather to say that if you want to make art to become well known then in my opinion you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. Also, if you truly like a creator you should spread the word, tell your friends, tell strangers on the internet! It’s hard to convince people to give your art a try, but if someone else is doing some evangelizing it becomes much easier.
Look what photography did to painting. I guess it ruined painting for some people. Made it less profitable to a large degree. But people still paint. They paint modern/post modern. They paint in old styles. Even new styles. Have you seen the generation of photo realism that’s out there? Wow. People paint digitally. They paint murals.
Is music going to change? Sure. And people will invent music that AI can’t replicate. Live music, for one.
I think the summation most people have is this… Tyler: “Here’s my album!!!” Audience/internet: “Yeahhh!!!” Random independent: “Here’s my music!!” Audience/internet: “Who the hell are you, is this spam??!”
I do wonder if places like Reddit have also given people the impression that self-promotion is bad.
I think he’s saying that you might not be able to attribute success to self promotion but you can definitely attribute failure to a lack thereof.
And in doing so, acknowledges your point about not getting big positive responses when you’re a nobody. He is saying to be proud of your work and to stand by it even if others don’t.
I think this is exactly the point he is trying to make. I made the mistake of letting the algorithm changes on Instagram be the scapegoat I used for deleting my photography-centered posts after a couple of years of constantly pushing my photography. In reality, though, it wasn’t just the algorithm that kept my photography from reaching a wider audience. Sure, I refused to start posting Reels of my photos with corny music, and hashtags became useless. Still, if I had tried harder, my photography would have kept reaching more people as I forced myself into the algorithm. At the end of the day, I was tired of seeing my likes slowly fade, and my reach stopped growing, so I gave up. That’s on me for giving up.
Probably about as many as ever, I think. They might have more instant feedback than previously on how popular their works are, but there are plenty of pre-internet creatives who pursued their art and had nothing to show for it even into their deaths. Many of the same self-justifications they used then can still apply now, even with the Internet around giving them feedback.
Great art still attracts. Serving new content is what the algos do best. Music has always had an underground scene. Some make it into the mainstream, or sell out, or don’t.
Add comment