This is one of those interesting pieces where the author is grinding an axe but also introduces some interesting definitions. So for my own sake, I'll try to lay them out plainly: A specialist is...
This is one of those interesting pieces where the author is grinding an axe but also introduces some interesting definitions. So for my own sake, I'll try to lay them out plainly:
A specialist is a traditional artist, author, painter, poet, performer, etc. We're talking traditional, skill-heavy media with established critical discourse and ownership of product. Increasingly irrelevant.
A creator is the modern, internet-first, platform-optimized, ephemeral, personality-driven, reactive, skill-light, multimodal stuff maker of the 21st century. The dominant form.
So, two poles with a sort of value judgment built in. I'm wondering if these definitions are useful.
The first thing that occurs to me is that I don't think this is a binary or even a continuum. "Specialist" compresses the entire diversity of creative effort into one big category, but every generation has had its low hanging fruit. I think tabloid newspapers, reality TV, cable news, pulp fiction, talk radio, myspace pages, and so on, in many cases, have more in common with the modern "creator" than they do with so-called specialists. They're personality- and engagement-driven, mostly ephemeral, not highbrow. So I feel like the author's "creator" is more the contemporary presentation of a long-lived pattern than it is anything substantially new.
Hmm. I don't think platforms are new, either. Record companies, big TV stations, radio, whatever, all exerted control over their respective platforms during their dominance. Even beyond that, historically, government/religion often dictated whether speech was permitted. Companies have a TOS, states have defamation and libel. Platforms are everywhere and control of information in search of advantage has been a feature of human society ever since it was possible for us to speak. Again, tech gives a new presentation of an old pattern.
Of course, maybe that's the point: Tech is novel, lowbrow creators are optimizing for the same goals in different ways now, we should talk about that. I feel like if you're gonna cut a cake, though, it makes sense to position the knife well, and the author's split between "specialist" and "creator" is an interesting cut, but I'm not sure it's the best cut. Although that's just a gut feeling.
It was a tortuous reading just for a couple of irrelevant definitions that cannot be definitely defined by the author. "Specialists" seem to use old tech and "creators" new tech and now AI comes...
It was a tortuous reading just for a couple of irrelevant definitions that cannot be definitely defined by the author.
"Specialists" seem to use old tech and "creators" new tech and now AI comes and it uses future tech.
What are the characteristics of a [edit: content] creator? [...] [...] [...] [...] PS: Sorry for forcing you to read quotes in such a dramatic format, it's fun to make :p
What are the characteristics of a [edit: content] creator?
The form that creators use is the post. [...] The post should not require interpretation or specialized background knowledge. [...]
[...]
Creators only produce small-scale pieces of content: everything they do is a minor, if not wholly ephemeral, work. [...]
Creators are generally better at persuasively aggregating other peoples’ work, herding pieces of information like cattle, than producing insights of their own. [...]
[...]
[...] it is normal for users to indulge in content that feels “bad” to consume [...]
Creators are more likely to say something that feels true than something which reveals itself to be true through careful consideration. [...]
[...] Creators are able to release something, change their mind or receive backlash, and then update their work, leaving no trace of the original artifact. [...]
Creators must convey an authentic personality through their work [...]
[...]
Everyone with a smartphone is a creator. [...]
[...]
PS: Sorry for forcing you to read quotes in such a dramatic format, it's fun to make :p
This is one of those interesting pieces where the author is grinding an axe but also introduces some interesting definitions. So for my own sake, I'll try to lay them out plainly:
So, two poles with a sort of value judgment built in. I'm wondering if these definitions are useful.
The first thing that occurs to me is that I don't think this is a binary or even a continuum. "Specialist" compresses the entire diversity of creative effort into one big category, but every generation has had its low hanging fruit. I think tabloid newspapers, reality TV, cable news, pulp fiction, talk radio, myspace pages, and so on, in many cases, have more in common with the modern "creator" than they do with so-called specialists. They're personality- and engagement-driven, mostly ephemeral, not highbrow. So I feel like the author's "creator" is more the contemporary presentation of a long-lived pattern than it is anything substantially new.
Hmm. I don't think platforms are new, either. Record companies, big TV stations, radio, whatever, all exerted control over their respective platforms during their dominance. Even beyond that, historically, government/religion often dictated whether speech was permitted. Companies have a TOS, states have defamation and libel. Platforms are everywhere and control of information in search of advantage has been a feature of human society ever since it was possible for us to speak. Again, tech gives a new presentation of an old pattern.
Of course, maybe that's the point: Tech is novel, lowbrow creators are optimizing for the same goals in different ways now, we should talk about that. I feel like if you're gonna cut a cake, though, it makes sense to position the knife well, and the author's split between "specialist" and "creator" is an interesting cut, but I'm not sure it's the best cut. Although that's just a gut feeling.
I was expecting something religious, not content creators.
Changed the title to clear up the confusion.
Same here. I was confused at first, until I figured out what the title was actually referring to
It was a tortuous reading just for a couple of irrelevant definitions that cannot be definitely defined by the author.
"Specialists" seem to use old tech and "creators" new tech and now AI comes and it uses future tech.
Too much of very little.
What are the characteristics of a [edit: content] creator?
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
PS: Sorry for forcing you to read quotes in such a dramatic format, it's fun to make :p