Before the year was out, I finished the book Filterworld by Kyle Chayka, which is about the flattening of culture at the hands of (the people who develop) algorithms.
And now that I've read the book, I can't unsee this process -- the dull sameness with which much of what we (are expected to) consume falls into -- and that wasn't always the case. Of course, some of that is due to (Western) cultural colonialism, but Chayka would probably agree that algorithms are a type of cultural colonialism, too.
Chayka isn't the only one who's noticed. A couple of weeks ago, I read an article that lamented Baryshnikov as one of the last adherents to "high art."
Chayka cites an essay by Scorsese, talking about his own influences [I have no opinion on Scorsese here, just being illustrative]: "The paranoia that I hear in Scorsese’s essay is that the art of the twenty-first century no longer holds up to such scrutiny. Instead, it’s cheap and ephemeral, wafting through your life without leaving any discernible mark. (The passion of his writing shows just how much Scorsese was marked by Fellini, an impact that he was still processing six decades later.) That may be because to fit into digital feeds, in order to attract those pernicious likes and further promote itself as much as possible, culture has to be content first and art second—if at all. "
🧵
[#]Books #Reading #Algorithm #Culture #Art #Content
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Furthering@convo.casa
I read the book on a visit to Lisbon and applied some of the ideas in the book to what I experienced. Most of the restaurants served the same five dishes. The same narrative about the 1755 earthquake was repeated time and again in information about the city. Tiles were for sale everywhere, some authentically produced, some facsimiles.
Chayka says, “a place’s uniqueness only attracts more tourists, which gradually grind it into dust with the increasing flow of travelers, who arrive to consume its character as a product and leave it ever more degraded. Difference just gets in the way; it creates friction in a world that is increasingly frictionless, whether in its cities or in its music.”
“Difference gets in the way.” What a shattering statement, which can be extrapolated further if you a person who seeks difference and celebrates it and who knows being exposed to differences makes us more openminded.
I also found his statement “Popularity alone often gets confused for meaning or significance” to be thought-provoking. He goes on to say, “The difference today is that in Filterworld, the metrics—the number of likes, the preexisting attention—tend to speak louder than the piece of culture itself. Not only do they act as a measure of success, but they create success, because they dictate what is recommended to and seen by audiences in the first place.”
🧵
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Furthering@convo.casa
His antidote is curation and archiving – and an easy form of curation, recommendation. Because these are human acts – they respect the work and create networks of connection, either one-on-one or within a community.
“Someone had to care enough to tell me what they liked, and I had to care enough to trust them and give it a fair try. Such cultural recommendations—communicating approval—are social and moral acts. We tell each other that we like things the same way that bees perform dances to pass on the location of a particularly fruitful flower. The very act brings us together.”
He emphasizes the responsibility of curation – that it’s not just what you like, but it’s also about an audience and how their reactions or perceptions may affect how they receive the information. I realized I do this when I recommend a book to someone – I take into account who they are, what they like reading, what I know about them, and how they may be affected by the book.
But the person receiving the recommendation should also be openminded about it and trust the recommender enough to give it a chance.
“Recommendations between people are a two-way exchange: the curator must consider the value of what they are passing on, and the consumer must remain open-minded, giving up the option of skipping the track if it’s not immediately appealing.”
🧵
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Furthering@convo.casa
When the algorithms aren’t at play, what marvels we can enjoy. I love encountering homegrown knowledge, personal passions developed over years, quirky hobbies, and the sense of discovery and appreciation that happens over such sharing.
Chayka says, “I found that the way to fight the generic is to seek the specific, whatever you are drawn toward. You don’t need to be a credentialed or professionalized expert to be a connoisseur. You don’t need to monetize your opinion as an influencer for it to be legitimate. The algorithm promises to supplant your taste and outsource it for you, like a robotic limb, but all it takes to form your own taste is thought, intention, and care.”
🧵
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Furthering@convo.casa
@Furthering Thank you for this thought-provoking thread and the booktip (sounds very interesting!).
What you write about tourism makes me reflect my volunteering as a museum guide. There's the easy way because you aren't paid for the work, because it's much easier, because you meet the expectations of the masses: Show the most popular shards of tiles, tell them what everybody wants to hear.
But then we have the passionate guides with their individual style. One of our eldest still remembers 1/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from NatureMC@mastodon.online
@Furthering 2/ the stories of the museum pieces from her childhood and recounts the reality of her life. One of them inspires people because she humorously debunks the ‘good old times’ and shows the high price behind it. One focusses on the migrant family whose lives are shown in the museum. She tells the story as if the people were actually present in the room.
These people can hardly save themselves from bookings. Word gets around who spreads this individual magic through passion.
We can
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from NatureMC@mastodon.online
@Furthering 3/3 afford this passion because we work voluntarily.
But if we had to earn our living and food with it, we would be forced to offer the greatest effect for the least effort. And to use algorithms as advertising.
What Chayka describes, has a lot to do with a world where the algorithm are made for the profit of a few super-rich and work in culture and arts is underpaid or even erased.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from NatureMC@mastodon.online
@NatureMC What a lovely story about the volunteer guide -- that truly makes an experience special. I think we crave that, even if we do not know it.
And yes, you're right. The need to monetize everything because we need to survive means that we do often have to take the easiest, most profitable route. The book also talks about content creators who started out with their own style but had to adapt to changing algorithms in order to stay relevant and continue to make money.
But of course, to your point, everyone who works for the algorithms is really working for the people at the top. You used "erased" to describe what's happening to some culture, and that feels like a good word.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Furthering@convo.casa This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini