I concur. Anecdotally, I see lots of content from TikTok creators replying to negative comments. At first I wondered why they seemed to be only amplifying negative responses instead of their fans, and then it hit me - those were the videos that did well (i.e. those videos got the most likes, views, shares). Showcasing a "hater comment" turns on the video viewers' tribal instinct. We want to side with the creator, to show the hater their place.
And that could hurt his bottom line. People there for the drama may not be paying customers. They may essentially be internet trolls.
That's the magic of the "attention economy" - the people that get emotionally invested in the dramas surrounding you are better than "paying customers", because they check their brains out and switch to ingroup/outgroup mode - at which point you can sell them absolutely anything whatsoever. In contrast, paying customers are just annoying - they have opinions, and aren't going to give your person the time and sustained attention - the kind of following that both you and the platform you're on can effectively monetize through friction (i.e. continued ad exposure).
Right now this seems to be the generic recipe for printing money on social media:
1. Become an influencer and work at it until existing influencers treat you as one of their own;
2. Start engaging in the semi-regular, petty, totally not scripted fights with your fellow influencers;
3. Sign a deal for putting your name on some random bullshit commodity product, like idk. eyeliners or perfumes or makeup kits, and watch money roll in.
4. Optional: bonus points if you can turn that deal info a story of two influencers having a falling out over who gets paid for the bullshit product from point 3. You can milk that kind of thing for years, all the while selling your audience the same or different flavor of bullshit with your name on it.
> In fact, the only way I can understand Rodriguez’s incredibly thin-skinned reaction to my article is that he has managed to rise to this status of apex visibility without any kind of critical writing about him at all.
edit: oops I see in your other comment you quoted that part!
What's more amazing to me is that the artist doesn't even seem to understand what a critic _does_ - like what is the critic doing? He's not "gatekeeping" (what gate? the artist is famous, getting rich, and has a gallery show!) and not jealous or a 'hater'.
Like I understand that artists traditionally dislike critics, for obvious reasons, but usually they know the purpose of criticism. As the author says he is trying to both put the art in context of other art and to consider how social media figures into the art.
I find it fascinating that you can look at the long arc of the moral universe and see it any other way. The only reason I can think of is that you’re staring at just the last few decades trying to discern a pattern, or even looking for the bend itself in the present. But if you take a step back and look at all of human history (and what we know about pre-history), how can you see it any other way?
World history just tends to be a bit more complicated than that and looking at history as a combination of "overcoming monarchy", "increased technical complexity" and "line goes up" might leave you with a limited view feeding into your pre-existing biases.
However, it is another thing to apply a supposed multi-generational trend, one that requires us to "step back" as you say, to the tactics of an individual playing the social media game. It's like the difference between the tide and an individual wave in the middle of the ocean.
It's either that he's very ignorant to how the internet works, or he has to say this for his own PR reason.
Much more likely is that after a few cycles those still involved have made it part of their identity.
That is not so. Donald Trump followers are not a static set. DT does lose and gain followers.
What might be true that some persona, no matter how disagreeable, will always have some followers.
Convicted criminals get love letters from strange women and all that.
If this artist continues in that way, most of his followers will come to consist only of people who are attracted by his obnoxious personality, without any connection to the works he creates. In the eyes of the world at large, he will just be that kitch-producing wanker with the idiot followers.
I didn't know who the artist in question was before today, but now I've at least heard of them, so it appears to be working.
I do believe that sometimes these kind of antagonistic partnerships could arise spontaneously. For example, the art critic may find his own tribe standing up for him. That may goad him into looking for a similar reaction from other art influencers in an attempt to forward his own career. However, that doesn't require coordination between them or conspiracy.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel_(professional_wrestling)
> The contrary is almost certainly true
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
This is completely false. I might even say that it is wishful thinking. Some kind of "long arc of history bends towards justice" make-believe.
The contrary is almost certainly true: picking fights with well-selected made up enemies is an effective way to promote a brand that is based on virtue. It transforms an inactive/passive audience into an active participant in a movement. I would bet many of the people attacking this art critic wrote their first comment in defense of this artist. He subtly said "I need your help" and his audience reacted.
The art critic noted the manufactured TikTok videos, obviously planned by a media savvy PR team. Perhaps he isn't cynical enough to believe it, but this sustained and coordinated attack against him may well have been planned and orchestrated.