Viewer, Commenter, Critic
Viewer, Commenter, Critic
As big tech breeds more marketers and influencers, are critics becoming extinct?
“They don’t build statues of critics” but I am starting to wonder if maybe we should? At the very least, maybe this is the point in time where we figure out how to support critics and protect them from going extinct? Look, when Jean Sibelius dropped the original quote in criticism of music critics, he didn’t know what “influencer” and “algorithm” are. They didn’t exist. I imagine being a critic back then was loads easier than making and growing something from scratch. But with the amount of trash products and content made and marketed to us these days, a well-researched and passionate critic might actually be bringing more value into the world.
The word “critic” has a negative connotation attached to it mostly because “a sandwich from this place is fairly good” doesn’t get nearly as many clicks and sell as many newspapers as “this is the best [or worst] dinner I’ve ever had.” And then, once everyone started self-appointing themselves as critics and leaning heavily on this kind of clickbait to maximize views online, the word “critic” has started to lose value overall.
Views and virality on their own are quickly losing value though. I really like the comment below from a 032c editor and one of my favorite fashion influencers Brenda Weischer about fashion criticism. Brenda is one of those rare influencers who pulled me in with her knowledge and experience in the fashion industry rather than cute outfits and looks. She has a genuine passion for learning and making that insider knowledge and fashion industry as a whole accessible to everyone who wants in. I am not even going to summarize or pull quotes from her comment because it’s worth reading the whole thing.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard people who produce high-quality content online say that 1000 paying subs on platforms like Patreon or Substack is much better than having 100k followers on TikTok.
In the past, critics were paid by production and media companies to write columns and give expert opinions. And even through the gatekeepers within that system were the ones who made the most money and decided who deserved a platform, the ones who made it through the gates, had full time jobs and were paid to write and talk about people’s work.
Since then, the big media started losing its monopoly on mass attention to big tech that exposed us to content that itches a different part of our brains and whose ad products are much better at putting the right stuff in front of the right people cheaply. At the same time, subscription-based streaming platforms, like Spotify and Netflix, started to make their own impact on the entertainment and media landscape as well.
This new system powered by tech has become an alternative ladder towards success that allowed new talent to come up quickly and break into the old system — they landed jobs and contracts because they brought new audiences to the old gatekeepers.
But as the novelty wore off and social media got saturated, making a stable living purely off of online commentary and criticism became really hard. Majority of online creators we know live off of brand deals and spinning up brands under their own names — neither of which really works as a monetization structure for critics. At the same time, big media has been losing power and became more desperate for access and money, so even the critics who still have a full time job, have become softer and friendlier to brands, artists, and makers over time.
I can think of only one real way for critics to stay open and honest while making a living today — venture out on a long and tough journey of building a loyal, paying audience who wants to experience art in the broader cultural context and buy high-quality products. The issue is that this effectively puts their content behind a paywall and out of reach for many, letting influencers and brands be only privately challenged and marketing and consumerism flourish where conversations and learning used to take place.
This sounds just about as dark as the overall public sentiment around the current state of criticism and creation. There is a certain kind of comfort people find in articles that emphasize how the current state of things sucks but personally, I think it’s a bit unfair and disrespectful to both thoughtful creators and critics who work hard to evolve with the times, and curious audiences that enjoy high-quality content and are smart enough to read between the lines. People really aren’t as stupid as tech giants and business executives like to assume. And when I start to doubt it, I think of A24 and the billions of dollars they make by producing all kinds of weird films.
There is an audience for critics. I didn’t read Pitchfork — my main associations with it are Anthony Fontano, brutal music reviews, and the sort of snobby and borderline miserable type of guy who mansplains indie music to girls at parties. But when Pitchfork as a stand-alone publication shut down, I was taken aback by how much it meant to many people I know and how many of them still read it on regular basis. It made me realize I don’t know a single thing about what constitutes objectively “good” music and even sparked my interest to learn more about it.
Casey Newton’s piece on how streaming platforms killed Pitchfork has an excellent thread on how the focus of music critics changed over time with the rise of streaming platforms and describes the void that remains open for critics to fill in the world where AI algorithms are becoming better and better curators. Again, it’s worth reading the whole thing, but essentially, he explains that with the rise of streaming, the role of music critics shifted from helping people identify artists whose records were worth spending money on to leaning into the role of historians and curators who help people navigate all the music available to them on streaming platforms. The hurdle that Pitfork failed to navigate though is that streaming platforms decide to lean into the role of historians and curators too. Yet, no matter how good the tech-enabled curation becomes, it still fails to “go beyond the data to tell you the story: of the artist, of the genre, of the music they made.” The type of stories that have the power to point you towards something you never expected to like but fell in love with.
Being able to think critically about what we consume, and being able to pull and connect the dots between references in different genres and different spheres of culture is what allows us to produce thoughtful, impressive work that goes beyond what’s trending. It takes more than opening up TikTok to understand what’s capturing people’s attention because believe it or not, the For You tab isn’t an accurate or full representation of where the culture is and moving towards. At the very least, being able to identify why you like or don’t like something clearly and honestly attracts like-minded, curious people and makes you so much more interesting and easy to connect with. And following and listening to real experts and critics is one of the core ways to learn how to do that.
A couple of other things I thought about and enjoyed this week:
Really interesting conversation about the intersection of technology and commerce, building online brands and loyal communities. Towards the end, Thom makes a point about how fashion brands, like Rick Owens, that created a hyper-niche and a community of people whose whole wardrobe is Rick, might be better off than brands who had a couple of pieces go extremely viral, and it really resonated with me. Connects with the whole conversation about views and virality losing value and the importance of building a loyal audience who will stick by you when the tides of hype and mainstream popularity change.
I bit the bullet and finally subbed to The Cutting Room Patreon.
I am really into learning about the business side of beauty, fashion and media lately, so I enjoyed the episodes with the creative industry’s veterans, like Todd Snyder and Ana Andjelic. Like them or not, leading massive consumer brands is a whole different beast and it’s fascinating to hear them speak on it.
Also, I put together this cute reference book for a Valentine’s Day project:
