I don't think that's the fair comparison. I think it's more, "is a doritos loco taco from Taco Bell cuisine?" When you compare it to some of the more out-there bits of molecular gastronomy, there's something to it (though it probably shouldn't be a large part of anyone's diet).
And if you're going to go with drugs, the more interesting question is about LSD or something like that, which gives you a weird and distinctive experience you couldn't get any other way.
I don't understand this comment. Practically everyone at my work is on tiktok or playing those time waster phone games like candy crush during breaks. I work in a factory where most people are 30s-50s. Is this sarcasm?
I like this optimistic take. It brings me back to optimistic thoughts from five years ago, about skateboarders drinking cranberry juice, and people harmonizing to sea shanties, and to thoughts from decades ago about lolcats and music videos. There really is aesthetic merit in many individual works in these genres, and it was plausible to be optimistic about them. It's helpful for me to be reminded about that, even as I judge that it's best for me to stay away from short-format video (and as young me judged that it would probably be better to stay away from TV).
Of course you’re right about art history and the resistance to new forms. But is that what TikTok videos are? There’s nothing new about them in terms of their ingredients (moving images, editing, sound, etc.), apart from their length. Aren’t they just a new genre?
Maybe. But if so, it’s pretty constricting as an art form. It’s also tied in at a very basic level to self-presentation and self-branding in a way that feels pretty comfy with consumer culture.
It seems like an interesting way to share little nuggets of experience and self presentation, but I don’t know how useful it is to call it art.
Of course there is some kind of skill and art involved in creating content that lots of people enjoy. I think the question is whether the time spent both creating and watching even the best of that content is worth it compared to almost anything else. And I think it's tough the conclude that the answer is anything other than no.
That doesn't make it unique in human history. As a child of 70s TV, I think Gilligan's Island, HR PufnStuf, The Monkees, and other junk from that era were similar wastes of time. It's just that that the collective amount of wasted hours spent creating and watching those black holes was far, far smaller.
I'm unpersuaded that short-form video's ascendancy is revealing the best in us. The most viewed video in January was a clever visual effect; people are curious about what it's like to be an attorney; video production takes effort, actually.
So what?
The crux of this topic isn't whether or not short-form videos belong in the ontology of art, it's whether or not we should take a stand against revealed preferences to collectively spend 8 billion hours a day doing gig work curation.
Also, this is more of a nitpick, but you should probably use cost of production instead of production time if you're wanting to compare films and short-form. Time by itself doesn't capture how magnitudes more people work on a film than a reel.
I like the idea that any form of human expression not primarily motivated by the drive to survive or reproduce counts as art, so by that definition short-form video is as much art as anything else. However, that isn't relevant to most arguments about if short-form video is a net positive for humanity.
My brain is fundamentally incapable of processing short-form video and I will never understand this particular art form, but upvoting anyway because social-media-and-screentime-scoldery delenda est.
Good article! Social media has become a problem, but the paternalistic moralizing from many with power and influence is so nauseating
Great post, gang
"Is heroin cuisine? In defense of hard drugs."
Obviously ridiculous comparison
Clearly, short form video is more similar to weed /s
This is pure cope for the braindead.
I don't think that's the fair comparison. I think it's more, "is a doritos loco taco from Taco Bell cuisine?" When you compare it to some of the more out-there bits of molecular gastronomy, there's something to it (though it probably shouldn't be a large part of anyone's diet).
And if you're going to go with drugs, the more interesting question is about LSD or something like that, which gives you a weird and distinctive experience you couldn't get any other way.
I think if you have TikTok on your phone, you weren't an adult.
I don't understand this comment. Practically everyone at my work is on tiktok or playing those time waster phone games like candy crush during breaks. I work in a factory where most people are 30s-50s. Is this sarcasm?
No. If you're on TikTok, you should be ashamed of yourself.
🤣🤣🙃🙃
I like this optimistic take. It brings me back to optimistic thoughts from five years ago, about skateboarders drinking cranberry juice, and people harmonizing to sea shanties, and to thoughts from decades ago about lolcats and music videos. There really is aesthetic merit in many individual works in these genres, and it was plausible to be optimistic about them. It's helpful for me to be reminded about that, even as I judge that it's best for me to stay away from short-format video (and as young me judged that it would probably be better to stay away from TV).
Of course you’re right about art history and the resistance to new forms. But is that what TikTok videos are? There’s nothing new about them in terms of their ingredients (moving images, editing, sound, etc.), apart from their length. Aren’t they just a new genre?
I think it can still be a different art form, sort of like plays vs musicals vs operas, or tv vs movies.
Maybe. But if so, it’s pretty constricting as an art form. It’s also tied in at a very basic level to self-presentation and self-branding in a way that feels pretty comfy with consumer culture.
It seems like an interesting way to share little nuggets of experience and self presentation, but I don’t know how useful it is to call it art.
Of course there is some kind of skill and art involved in creating content that lots of people enjoy. I think the question is whether the time spent both creating and watching even the best of that content is worth it compared to almost anything else. And I think it's tough the conclude that the answer is anything other than no.
That doesn't make it unique in human history. As a child of 70s TV, I think Gilligan's Island, HR PufnStuf, The Monkees, and other junk from that era were similar wastes of time. It's just that that the collective amount of wasted hours spent creating and watching those black holes was far, far smaller.
I'm unpersuaded that short-form video's ascendancy is revealing the best in us. The most viewed video in January was a clever visual effect; people are curious about what it's like to be an attorney; video production takes effort, actually.
So what?
The crux of this topic isn't whether or not short-form videos belong in the ontology of art, it's whether or not we should take a stand against revealed preferences to collectively spend 8 billion hours a day doing gig work curation.
Also, this is more of a nitpick, but you should probably use cost of production instead of production time if you're wanting to compare films and short-form. Time by itself doesn't capture how magnitudes more people work on a film than a reel.
I like the idea that any form of human expression not primarily motivated by the drive to survive or reproduce counts as art, so by that definition short-form video is as much art as anything else. However, that isn't relevant to most arguments about if short-form video is a net positive for humanity.
With a loose enough definition of art, you can count Jerry Springer, but that is a poor defense of bad art that is a net negative to humanity.
My brain is fundamentally incapable of processing short-form video and I will never understand this particular art form, but upvoting anyway because social-media-and-screentime-scoldery delenda est.
💯