Here’s one more thing to add to your list of concerns: the mass acceptance of the word content to include all digital and print media—videos, reels, social media updates, movies, podcasts, infographics, photos, songs, musical work, articles, scripts, poetry, books—and basically, all traditional artwork. What's the danger? Read about The Dangers below.
I confess, I have been using content as an all-inclusive word that collects all art under one big happy word was merely being modern. Many people are using this word to refer to media created by people, so why can’t I?
And then, my eyes were opened. See Patrick's video about how the word content is being used nowadays.
The evolution of the word "content" to mean all these different art forms is an interesting subject. But more on that later in Part 2.
Is this fair?
Are all content created equal? Of course not, you say.
The Dangers
It can be fair to use content as a simple organizational word—if you realize the Herculean effort, skill, and time needed to create the works in the first row compared to the effort in the second row’s works.
The first row of creations, namely, movies, musical plays, and projects of a collaborative nature, require multiple divisions of people to make the creation great and exceptional in quality. These creations are detailed or meticulous works. The second row of creations can be high quality, but often these fast creations are lower in quality and meant to be consumed quickly and then, onto the next fast creation.
It does seem fair if we don’t attribute the same value to each of these creations or content, which are all different and serve the consumer’s needs differently. Detailed or slow creations often require significant labor and artistic skill, making them more valuable. On the other hand, fast creations, designed for quick consumption, serve a different purpose and meet different needs, which can justify their lower value. And I believe there's space enough in this world for slow and fast creations, my wording. Yes, I consume numerous YouTube videos, shorts, Pinterest pins, and Insta/TikTok reels too.
However, certain entities are trying to lump these art forms into this one word (content, in case you’re not paying attention!) to more easily monetize the worth for their profit. In other words, these entities are devising their own price control over artists’ work through shady practices. I’m leaving the identities of these entities to your imagination and/or deductive reasoning.
Some of these entities are fair, they compensate the artists and workers for market prices. I suspect that most entities are not fair—from the reports that I hear from actors, writers, musicians, and artists. Actors, writers, musicians, dancers, and artists are robbed of their fair wages through streaming policies, piracy, and AI training of their work.
If most entities were fair, we would see a more level spreading of wealth among the population. Is that what we see happening? See the blog post "Sad Reality for Many Creatives."
Conclusion
Content is simply a word. It does no harm of itself. The word content is not seeking our destruction, although that does give me a story idea. It's the bad actors and organizations who use that word that we should be wary of.
Comments