Who is it for?

Every type of creative media has an intended audience. I think it's important to consider that when choosing a medium on which to publish your work. Tik-Tok and Instagram, Facebook and X–these platforms are intended for quick-scrolling, attention-grabbing, time-wasting delivery methods, serving as the spoon upon which unpalatable ads are propagated. Is this where you want to place your hard work, your time well-spent, your great art? To be scrolled by, maybe given a like or a re-share? Imagine you're a kid, and you're super proud of what you've made, and you're discouraged and depressed because the internet scrolled by without engaging you. Does that mean your art sucks? Maybe you got ten likes and ran downstairs to say, "hey Dad! Look, I got ten whole likes!" Is this the measure of success for the modern era, a French salon of thinkers, artists and writers for the 21st century? Will you compete with AI slop for precious eyeballs from the algorithm gods? Is a tweet an artistic legacy?

If the answer to all of these is a resounding "No!", then why should we post on insta? What possesses photographers to choose a vertical crop of a horizontal subject (such as a car, why is it always the car people?) and ruin their composition just to please the 'gram? Why append a white border just to fit Facebook's dimensions? Why shoot for these inferior, low resolution, arbitrary platforms at all, where your work is barely still your own, the aspect ratios and file sizes are determined by a crystal ball, and people are as likely to just scroll by as they are to stop and look for a moment while second-screening something else? That is, of course, if they're people and not bots on the platform paid by whomever to influence whatever.

If you're an artist, I encourage you to take back control of your art. Part of why I started this website was to do so, myself. To publish the way you want, when you want, and for whom you want–your intended audience–rather than an all-channels broadcast that reaches everyone and no one. Maybe those bots are a captive audience, but I doubt it. I invite you to shoot the aspect ratio that best composes the shot. To write whatever genre you choose, or maybe throw away genre and go wild into the forest of ideas with no plan.

I like art galleries. I like them because people who visit art galleries tend to stop and really look at what's hanging on the wall. The medium chooses the audience, because the audience chooses the medium based on their own tendencies and habits. It is very hard to doom-scroll an art exhibit, but perhaps someone has taken that on as a challenge. That'd be something. Gallery shows tend to be juried, meaning you have to apply to participate, and usually pay a nominal operations fee to keep the lights on at the gallery. This, like the traditional publishing industry, serves to filter out (to some extent, more on that later) low quality work or unserious work (shitposts, AI slop, and the like) so that the standard is high enough to be worth patrons stopping by to have a look. Your art is generally in good company, or comparable company.

Also, if you sell a piece, you make a real profit with real money in the real world. Maybe that's worth more than likes or follows. To me, it certainly is, and not for monetary reasons. Knowing that my work was loved enough that someone wanted to pay for it, and hang it in their home, their place of business, or otherwise endorse it as something they want to display, is of value to me. It can't be scrolled past, can't be shadow-banned, can't be removed for not following the posting guidelines or ever-changing terms of service. It can't be stolen (except in the traditional sense), either. Try entrusting or gifting someone a tweet or an insta reel. I would rather continue making high quality prints, framing them, and exhibiting them, than ever use social media again. "But how then, will you find your audience? How will you advertise?" By using the media I've chosen to reach the audience who're my people, of course. And that's not the like-and-subscribe crowd. They are not opening their wallets, nor are they giving art the dialogue and critique it deserves, because the medium they frequent disallows such things to happen by design.

Earlier, I mentioned how these more traditional media filter out the undesirable applicants. That's true, but I have more to say about them that isn't quite as rosy. These same gatekeepers–because yes, that's what they are–can also be racists, sexists, prudes, or just haters of whatever it is you're doing. They might not get it. That's an issue for the artist to consider whom they will work with to avoid such things when possible, but it's also on all of us to put pressure on those bad eggs to change their ways or be left behind in the artistic discourse, in the financial art markets. To make wide the way for other artists who can't smash through barriers with privilege. To pay it forward how we can. Supporting local arts venues also supports neighbors' businesses. The money doesn't flow to Silicon Valley billionaires. It stays here. And I'm not subjecting anyone to annoying ads, an ever-shittier user experience, or making them subscribe or follow anything.

When I've got art I want to show the world, I've learned to pause and consider, which world's attention do I want on it? Is this an all-channels broadcast to anyone and everyone in hopes that maybe someone might stumble upon it and vibe with it, or do I want to exhibit my hard-earned results to a smaller contingent who most all likely care, are interested, are already engaged and already willing and eager to engage further with it on a deeper level, to offer their own precious time to it in the back-and-forth the artistic community thrives on?

I know what my answer is; what's yours?