logoalt Hacker News

advisedwangyesterday at 6:00 PM1 replyview on HN

I believe there is a material difference between "content" and other modes of creative output: content is defined by a pipeline. It is desired for it's recurring revenue.

You could make the tackiest, most commercial and derivative musical, but it's still not content because it's just one.

You could make the most eloquent, poetic and inventive podcast in the world, but so long as you are still doing weekly releases (with ads, plus an ad free patreon, of course) it is content.

The tragedy is that we want artists to have reliable income, but the business models, incentives and consumption habits that come with the reliable output to provide that reliable income lead us to the ugliness that people blame on "content".


Replies

WalterBrightyesterday at 8:05 PM

> The tragedy is that we want artists to have reliable income

If artists create art that people are willing to pay for, great!

I don't really want to pay artists for art I don't like.

I remember when Nirvana suddenly became successful. Many in the local community called them "sellouts", which is quite unfair.

show 1 reply