The density of the visual image, its lack of thoughtful space, also conceals the way in which spectators who go on to become “pseudo-makers” – this term distinguishes them from what we can call real makers, those who possess a knowledge of the techniques and forms that they are using – are assimilated into visual culture: they use the forms of visual culture (VC), which have standard effects, but remain unaware of the existence of these forms, or how they work. Although these pseudo-makers remain unaware, because of their habitual exposure to visual imagery (VI), in creating ‘content’, they use and repeat these forms. For example, sequences of specific shots; the positioning of players (I use this term to distinguish them from actors) in relation to the camera and each other; positioning of the camera when filming. One can even see this manifesting in interviews, whereby the professional politician is given an easier time of it than the union activist.
This repetition does not just occur on social media (SM), it has always permeated TV, which in turn borrowed its forms from film. Thus, we have an Aristotelian format, rewritten as “Use X because X has worked in this prior medium”. What each medium does is habitually repeat the forms of prior media, whilst also developing some which are particular to its own medium.
The habitual repetition of form by pseudo-makers delivers ‘content’ (I am using this term to distinguish what one sees on social media from, say, TV or from film) to those who, in turn, remain unaware of how form works, except in terms of whether it gives them pleasure (conventional form) or un-pleasure (form that differs from the ‘norm’). In this, we can see a reluctance (? an inability?) to ask fundamental questions of both the content and, therefore, of themselves: Why does this give me pleasure? How do does it do this? What combination of forms does it use? In what sense(s) does form align me with what I see? What am I conscious of taking place in this content? Why do I ‘like’ this?
That final question is the one that has caused many of the ‘problems’ that we now encounter. The advent of postmodernity has filtered down into mainstream society as “All opinions are valid” which, in turn, led to a rejection of “considered thought”. Thus, our society has come to accept “I like this” as a valid opinion, when in fact it says nothing at all. It gives no reasons, engages in no critique. The acceptance of this has had the effect of causing critical analysis to be classed as elitism, negating the need to support one’s ‘opinions’ with evidence. However, it goes further than this, manifesting as anti-expert and anti-intellectual; being knowledgeable about an area is denigrated, therefore, intelligence is hidden. At times, it seems that intelligence itself is classed as a ‘flaw’.
I recall, some decades ago, talking about a film I’d just seen with friends. As I tried to argue about what the film actually meant, one friend became increasingly frustrated, shouting, “A film is just a film!” But it isn’t. Nor can it ever be. In exactly the same way that a poem/novel/drama is never just a poem/novel/drama. Every work of Art is layered, and layered in ways that remain unknown to the author/maker. This can be characterised as the work of Art being created consciously, yet being influenced by the unconscious. In using these terms, I am not talking about exclusively interior states of mind; one can expand these categories to include the social environment, the political climate, the historical context, in short the dynamic that exists between artist and society.
What also has to be established here are the differences between Art and content. The latter is motivated by in the case of, say, the ubiquitous ‘influencers’ by profit, by the need to promote their ‘brand’; I am not excluding ‘political’ influencers here. They profit from their promotion of racism, misogyny and general hatred, therefore, conflict. The difference between content and Art is that the creation of Art is motivated by dissatisfaction, but a dissatisfaction with inequality and injustice. Conflict, for the artist, is borne of a desire to make the world better for everyone by illustrating in some ways or other -depending on the medium – how things might be or by concentrating on the wrongness of the world as it is. Artists, one can say, by default left-wing; after all, how many right-wing book or film festivals exist?
Art requires people to think, in fact it forces people to think – about themselves, about the society they inhabit, about their relations with others in that society (taking ‘society’ as referring to world in general). Each particular work of Art, we might say, “chips away” at the monolith of capitalism.
In regard to Art, postmodernity can be seen as a weapon. The claim that our society has seen the end of metanarratives is a product of the metanarrative of capitalism itself. ‘Individuality’, the crucial component of capitalism, works to shatter the connections between people (I have a connection with X in virtue of the fact that they are a human person). Individuality is framed in terms of the economic – if X has this amount, you have less. Blame that immigrant, transperson, union organiser. Politics is reduced to the cult of the individual and sound bite; manifestos are antiquated, too much trouble to read.
The metanarrative of capitalism has used, and uses, SM as a component in its war on intelligence. The insistence is on “face-value”: that to analyse or critique Y is elitist – as we say here, an indication that someone is “full of themselves”. Your own uninformed (unintelligent) opinion is enough. Your un-knowledgeable, non-understanding of whatever it is is valid. Wnhy concern yourself with thought? Why concern yourself with trying to become a better, more understanding person when money will solve all your problems – but you can only be rich at the expense of others. That is all you need to remember. Life is competition and, if you are going to win, others must lose. Your care for others is misplaced, a product of “woke ideology”.
To put it in clichéd terms, this is the ‘message’ that content constantly delivers and reinforces. Imitate this and you will benefit. Don’t think beyond the surface, live in the moment. The world is a threatening, scary place and you’re powerless to do anything about it, so think only of yourself (and, if possible, those whom you’ve been told to ‘love’ – in the transactional way that capitalism defines love). As Thatcher infamously said (and I’ve quoted this before), “There is no such thing as society; there are collections of individuals.”
The ‘evolution’ of SM is represented as ‘natural’: it has developed this way because this is the way that human persons use SM in particular, and digital technology in general. The hidden metanarrative is transaction. Each relation and disposition is (supposed to be) permeated by this way of thinking, and it is posited as a way of thinking, but one that exists without reflection or analysis. Which, given our definition(s) of ‘thought’ and ‘thinking’, means we need another word. The term thinking confers a rationality, a ‘respectability’, which whatever this is it does not possess. When we remove the concepts of meaning, understanding and knowledge from the definition of ‘thinking’ what is left? Opinion? Survival? Reductionism? Non-thinking? Insanity?
Capitalism has though utilised postmodernity to empty thought of its definitional content, substituting the repetition of the bland and banal as a positive habit.