Discussion about this post

User's avatar
LucidLedger's avatar

Art has always flirted with visibility. The Medici didn't fund Michelangelo because they loved abstraction, but they loved what his work did for their name. The Sistine Chapel is as much a PR operation as it is a spiritual project.

The artist was always pushed to negotiate with whoever controlled the resources. The only thing that changed is who sits on the other side of the table.

Substack is, in a way, a dispersed patron. Instead of one sponsor, you have a thousand subscribers. Instead of an explicit commission ("paint my ceiling"), you have the implicit pressure of metrics. The form of patronage changed, but I think the dynamic didn't.

But where your argument really lands is that the quality of that attention is fundamentally different. A patron had taste. Good or bad, but articulated. At the same time, an algorithm has no taste; it has signals: clicks, dwell time, shares. When a creator optimises for that signal, he's not answering to a person with a vision. He is answering to statistical noise pretending to be an audience.

The problem was never that art flirts with attention. It always did. The problem is the difference between a patron who says "make something great" and a dashboard that says "your title had 3% better CTR with an emoji."

That said, I think the platform gets too much credit as the agent of change here. Substack doesn't cause identity drift. It accelerates it in people who never had a stable centre to begin with.

A creator with a clear internal position won't collapse because of an A/B test :)

Atmos's avatar

Yes! What you create is a byproduct of what you are (becoming). It's going INSIDE instead of relying on the outside to tell you what you are.

It's that simple. Go inside if you want to find wisdom.

79 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?