00:00:00
Speaker 1: Like, what does this even mean? What does toast? Toast is chic? What does that mean? Anything can be chic? An algorithm can be chic. Humans should strive, particularly in an era of AI despite the fact this was written in nineteen sixty four, humans should be striving for more than simply chic in what we put out and what we create and what we aspire to do. I don't think I could have come across this essay notes on camp by Susan Sontag at a better time. We have seen such a rise in the aspiration among influencers and just pretty much anyone posting online to be cool and to be niche. People telling you to lean in, to be that girl, to be the cool girl. And it really just has me thinking, what on earth does this all mean? What does it mean? It's giving le booboo Mark's grave kind of chic, like it's too much. Welcome to from the Diving Board, the show hosted by me Charlie Chats where we deep dive the hidden politics behind the screen. This podcast was recorded on the lands of the Waraundry waroring people of the Kulin Nation. I pay my respects to the traditional custodians of this land and elders past and present. I want to extend my respect to any Aboriginal and Toro Strait Islander listeners tuning in today. Sovereignty was never seeded. Brenda Hashtag, an influential person online who actually grew her following back in the Tumblr days, recently wrote a substack article that went pretty viral as well, where she also criticized the tendency for people to engage in AI templates and can the templates to create a certain style of content which I will put up on the screen. But essentially it's like the pastel text on screen's style content. You're saying, imagine someone in a particular outfit with pastel text on screen that could literally say anything and everything, could be interesting, could literally be the most basic phrase you've ever heard. Brenda Hashtag's argument was that is creating a level of creativity demise honestly online. Now. I actually have various thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree with their take in its entirety, but we're gonna get into that later in today's episode. Because I think these pieces form part of a broader puzzle. There is a much bigger picture here than simply criticizing the individual influences for what kind of content they're posting online, and that puzzle fits into hyper capitalistic values and the way in which these online spaces are causing us more and more to become and engage with these platforms in an inhuman way. Adding myself as a chronically online person, I believe that this kind of cheek to content, which by the way, kind of cheak too, can be literally anything kind of cheek to go on a walk, kind of chak to call your boyfriend, kind of chap to break up with your boyfriend, kind of chic to what Shrek on the weekends? Insert literally anything in the space after kind sheeke too. That's the vibe of the trend and this whole I want to call it entry level easy content. And I don't say that in a derogatory, judgmental way. I really say that in the way that it is genuinely so easy to create. I say that as someone who has participated in this trend. Okay, hypocrite, hypocrite alert. Now we've got that out of the way, let's continue with the episode. I think this trend started with Verona Farrell, or at least this was the first time I came across this style of content. She posted a series of TikTok videos where she was reading from a notebook. It was entitled things I find very rock and roll.
00:03:38
Speaker 2: These are some things that people do that I think are very rock and roll. Having a bush, giving someone your phone number on a piece of paper fabulous, Quitting your job without the next one lined up, just like trusting the gods.
00:03:49
Speaker 1: Like, if you're in the same algorithm as me, you probably did come across this as well, because it blew up, it went crazy. There were so many iterations of this by her, and then multiple people jumped on to the point where I think, now it's kind of a standard thing to see someone read from a notebook to the screen on TikTok, and usually I would say that kind of possesses or at least exudes this quality of intellectualism, which is definitely adjacent. I think with the desire to be niche, there's some sort of association with elitism, nichess intellectualism, and cultural cred which I think all combines into what it is that people are seeking when they want when they describe themselves as wanting to be a niche influencer, rather than a mainstream influencer. Whatever that even means when we have echo chambers and no one gets anyone else's references anymore. But I digress. You've probably had of the girl with the list who is a TikToker who for the last few years, every single video highlights a reason not to have children. You've also probably come across the trend where it's to say five things that are worth spending money on, and of course kind of seek to insert literally anything in that space. Feels like a bit of an offshoot of this list obsession. And I mean, from a very basic level, to write a list is probably the easiest thing you can write. And so when it comes to entry level easy content to partake in when you're time poor or you just want to throw your hat in the lottery, hat in the ring to potentially be seen go viral, et cetera. It totally makes sense why people want to make this kind of content. It totally makes sense. And this is particularly because right now, but a lot of people want to be influencers. I think right now, when we look at the scope of opportunity for young people, there's firstly like an abundance of opportunity, and there's definitely a decision paralysis situation happening. But by the same token, there's also severe uncertainty and overwhelm when it comes to how you actually even make decisions, because the future of what the world looks like, what the world looks like for your children, what the world looks like for yourself, is so up in the air. And obviously this is in reference to climate change, it's in reference to cost of living, it's in reference to the AI bubble, is in reference to literally, we can't predict what's going to happen next, because we're already living in what feels like dystopia. And I think a lot of young people are obviously kind of bound by this paralysis because firstly, as I said, there's all these options potentially, but actually, when it comes down to it, so little option and so many many people, Many young people lean into apathy and a sentiment that they kind of don't care about the situation when really deeply, I think a lot of us do or lean into nihilism, which ultimately sometimes translate and turns into absurdism, because if you can't control anything, why not just have fun? And this is something that I talk about on my video essay called the Politics of Whimsy, and you can find that linked in the description and also on my YouTube channel and on my podcast from the Diving Board. It's a couple of episodes back. And I think in a funny way, this is the reason why a lot of people want to throw their hat in with influencing and social media because it is such an absurd outcome to potentially win that algorithmic lottery and become the biggest name influencer. But it's also so absurd that you can even make a career and make lucrative money, like a lot of money from posting videos of yourself online. Not to mention that when you look at all of the alternatives, it's also an incredibly good career for work, life balance, for flexibility, if you're a parent or want to be a parent. That's obviously so many variables. And I think this is the kicker is that it seems so achievable, and so we see that on a regular basis, this rags to riches situation when it comes to influencing, which is obviously very aspirational. We all kind of want, like hello, who wouldn't want that? Like that's crazy, But it is actually such a strange situation because no other can offer this significant change in lifestyle, sometimes overnight. I would say, I would say pretty much no other job can do that. But no other job requires so much of your time, energy, and sometimes money before you even get the job, and under the guise that there's the possibility that you never will. And what I mean by this is we are giving, we are making so much content for these apps. We are giving so much of our lives, our personal information, our data to these apps. If we're posting with this kind of desire obviously to hopefully one day make it. But at the end of the day, they're getting a lot more from us than we're getting from them. And in fact, the chances of you making it are so low that it's a wonder why people keep on posting. And I think it's because that dream is just so enticing. But not only that, so many people are relying on this. The alternative jobs simply pale in comparison when it comes to finances, flexibility, cost of living, and a good work life balance. Why would you not try? Why would you not at least try? And so this is why I find the easier kind of entry level content being pushed by the algorithm. Quite fascinating on multiple different fronts, because I don't think it's fair to blame anyone for jumping onto a trend that is currently gaining traction if they genuinely want to make a living from this, and if they're trying to find a voice or a space or a community in influencing, if that's what they want to do, my criticism is never going to be on anyone who jumps on these trends. It's instead going to be on algorithms that promote, prioritize, and encourage sameness. And I think the biggest argument that is so necessary to talk about, particularly in the context of Brenda Hashtag's article, which ultimately I think did lean into blaming people fully for jumping onto these trends, and her argument was very focused on on the value in being creative and using creative energy to create content, and I do completely agree on many levels, but I think that the blame was placed on the wrong person, the wrong entity. The blame being placed on the person for jumping onto this trend is just so unfair when really it's the algorithm that's promoting these trends and sameness. As I said, and I think we need to acknowledge that social media AI driven algorithms still have white bias embedded within them. They still function on Eurocentric beauty standards and upholding the voices, platforms, and visibility of people that align the most with whiteness, proximity to whiteness, and Eurocentric standards of beauty, particularly when it comes to women, because these algorithms are trained on a history of racist start of Eurocentric beauty standards of information that has come from our society that then reinforces systemic race with what we actually see on our feeds and whose content is promoted the most. One of the creators that I noticed this argument coming from first was CMP in my season on TikTok, was that when you critique people, particularly when it's black women or women of color, for leaning into these trends, under the guise that you're saying, oh, it's not very creative to lean into this, you're completely stripping the situation from the systemic reality, which is that sometimes without leaning into these trends, your content will not be pushed out. And so can you really blame someone who's not benefiting from proximity to whiteness or eurocentric beauty standards for leaning into a trend that is obviously trending, that is obviously going to push your content out more. It's not just the fact that we're not seeing certain people. It's not just the fact that white bias promotes white faces. It's the fact that white bias promotes a lack of diversity of voice, of opinion, of problem solving, of information, of political information, of news. And this is really really dangerous. This is a flattening of culture that is really really concerning for the way in which we're absorbing information, Because the more and more and more we are on these apps, the less and less people are reading books, the less and less people are actually going to news websites to absorb our political information and news. And yes, of course, what I love to see a world where anyone and everyone who posts online is only doing it for creative purposes and there's no financial incentive involved. Obviously that would be my dream. But in order to achieve that, we need to achieve universal basic income. And I just don't think anyone would want to be on social media if we're in that reality, Like, I just don't think we would have the same desirability to be on our screens if we had universal basic income. So maybe that's actually the ultimate argument of this podcast episode. No, I'm kidding, but also am I. Typically with these trends, usually there is a hyper consumerist element to the way in which cool is being presented. Usually it's cool girls eat at X restaurant? Where do the cool girls go? What are the cool girls wearing? What are the cool girls doing with their spare time on a Friday night? And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I think that co opting cool, when you're using it to represent consumerism and hyper capitalism ultimately just becomes very uncool. And that's not to say again that like, if you've said this, you're uncool, But it's more that what do these words actually mean now? When everyone wants to be niche? What does niche mean anymore? All of these words lose their meaning because it's become this flattened trend which was never really meant to mean anything except for the fact that we jumped on because it was gaining likes, tractions, and shares. Ultimately, by creating this content, we're feeding back to the algorithm exactly what it's telling us it wants more of. And that's when we start creating a potentially problematic culture because we're being driven by the algorithms as opposed to us driving the algorithms. When algorithms favor this type of sort of flattened content over personal insight, over expressions of attempts to connect with audiences, and over personality and uniqueness, that's when we really have to start asking what the role of influencing actually is. At the moment, it makes me think of Instagram face and the result of algorithms ultimately driving our everyday life and our literal physical being and body. And I think about, honestly, the tendency or the desire to have cosmetic work done if you were in an industry that relied on your looks in some way or another, whether you're an influencer, whether you're an actor or singer, whatever. And I do think about the fact that we live in such a visual world now. These algorithms are so heavily dictated by standards of beauty that align so heavily with this Instagram face esthetic. I can understand in some way the desire to get work done to align more with that look, if it's going to mean that you're going to make more money. This is not to say this is the only reason you would get work done, but I think that there's definitely something to be said about the desire to get work done. If you were an influencer finding yourself in a situation where you didn't have as much work for a period of time, I could totally see how you might have work done to change your appearance in the hope that that would somehow push your content out more and therefore result in more brand deals. And this is again not a criticism of those people at all. It's a criticism of a system designed to drill into us that a certain look will give us more visibility and credibility, and that that translates into money. It's a criticism at the end of the day, of patriarchal capitalism and techno patriarchy as well. This idea as well, isn't new. I mean, the idea of getting cosmetic work done for an increase in potentially financial gain is something that I think a lot of people deal with on a regular basis in many different industries. The one that comes to mind is sex work. It's a really interesting conversation and one that I could definitely delve into further if you wanted an episode on that, because I find it very interesting, very nuanced, because ultimately, again this comes down to not a judgment at all on the people that end up leaning in, but actually a judgment on the system that prioritizes and values that, ultimately returning to sameness as this trend that it's being pushed by algorithms, I think it's really important to make the statement and acknowledge that culture is literally shaped by what we see online now. I think ultimately, when so many people lean into this trend, when it comes so expansive, when it's ever evermanned dog is joining in on this trend, it becomes very robotic and inhuman. Ultimately, there's no risk in posting this content, really if your fear is of being judged or perceived to be cringe, because everyone is posting this content. For the next part of the video, I want to talk about Susan Sontag's Notes on Camp. This is a book that has two essays in them, but I sped through them. They're really really good. But we're going to talk about the first one, which I have tagged so much of She essentially writes about this specific taste or sensibility as she describes that is camp, and I literally mean camp, as in like Lady Gargar's camp, Kylie Minogue camp. She describes a woman wearing a feather dress as also being camp. I think you kind of get the vibe. But she spends the entire essay describing this specific phenomenon of camp and how it's caught on so much in culture. But very importantly, she talks about the way in which taste and culture inform each other and are much more important than I think we like to let on or that we realize as a society. And the reason I bring this up is because I think that there is a very interesting conversation about this drive in cool niche chic, this very specific style of content, and our taste for that specific style of content, and what that actually means for broader culture. In relation to taste, she writes on page two, most people think of sensibility or taste as the realm of purely subjective preferences, those mysterious attractions mainly sential that have not been brought under the sovereignty of reason. But this attitude is naive. For taste governs every free human response. There is taste in people, visual taste, taste in emotion, and there is taste in acts. Taste in morality, intelligence as well is really kind of taste taste in ideas. Describing Camp itself, she writes, many examples of camp are things which, from a serious point of view are either bad art or kitch, not all, though, she goes on to say camp is the love of the exaggerated, the off of things being what they are. Not. Camp sees everything in quotation marks. To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand being as playing a role. Essentially, it's kind of like a playful recognition that we're all living a performance and that everything is kind of absurd and ironic. But interestingly and importantly, a very huge and important value of being camp is that the person or thing that ends up Camp usually tried to be very serious about what it was they were seeking to do. Usually they didn't set out to be comical, or to be ironic, or to be camp. Instead, they were really seriously trying to pursue something extravagant, something bold, and it ended up feeling a little bit off, which she makes a very strong point not to say that it ends up being bad, not to place moral value on whether or not Camp is good or bad, because it sits somewhere on a different scale. It's not on the good to bad trajectory. In fact, this is what makes Camp so inherently human. I think it is so inherently human to be able to see someone try really really hard to achieve one thing and to have that thing fail at achieving what was initially intended to be achieved, but end up being something different and sometimes better and appreciated more than it ever intended on being. And I think that's a very very human experience. I think that sincerity with which you tried to do something and it ends up being a bit off and a bit quirky and a bit awkward, but also a bit extravagant and fabulous. Gosh, that is hard for AI to do. Gosh, I don't think AI can do that. I really just don't, because it also AI inherently doesn't have that human quality that's required to even try in the first place. What was most crazy about this book? Genuinely this is crazy, Like did I have a premonition? I don't know because she literally writes when something is just bad rather than camp, it's often because it is too mediocre in its ambition. The artist hasn't attempted to do anything really outlandish. It's too much, it's too fantastic, it's not to be believed are standard phrases of camp enthusiasm. She goes on to say, without passion, one gets pseudo camp. What is merely decorative, safe, in a word, chic. If that's not enough reason to not aspire to be sheait, guys, I don't know what is. She literally just called Sheik lame and loser. I just wrote that there. She wrote that there. I just translated that for you. What I take from this essay is that camp is inherently human, where things like chic are not. Anything can be k, an algorithm can be ic, AI can be shek in what it creates. Humans should strive, particularly in an era of AI. Despite the fact this was written in nineteen sixty four, humans should be striving for more than simply chic in what we put out, in what we create, in what we aspire to do. But again, I think it's important to make the distinction that camp is not necessarily moral but in the context of camp being so inherently human, which is a specific quote that Sontag writes, she does say towards the end of her essay, camp taste is a kind of love, love for human nature. It relishes, rather than judges, the little triumphs and awkward intensities of character. Camp is a tender feeling, and in that regard, I don't think it really can be representative of a system that is so exploitative. I think that things that are camp can't really be made by AI, can't be adjacent to AI, and probably can't really be super adjacent to capitalism either. Funnily enough, though, when I was looking into this on TikTok, I did come across Etymology nerds TikTok video that he posted earlier this year, where he argues that AI Fruit Love Island videos are camp. He says that this is because they're inherently bad taste trying to be good, and because it takes itself so seriously despite being slop to that. My interpretation of Sontag's essay is that it really has to be a human who's trying, because actually I disagree that AI can even try at all. I don't think that AI is trying at all to be good because it has no ability to determine what's good or bad, and therefore I don't think AI slop can be camp. That's my take on the matter. But I'm also really interested in what your thoughts are. If you've read this book, if you have thoughts on what's camp, what's not camp, let me know, because I think that's really fascinating. As a side tangent. Anyway, let's actually I don't know how we got here, let's go back to what we were originally talking about. The reason I brought that all up camp, et cetera is because I think that there is a nervousness with trying at the moment. There's a fear of being cringed. There's a fear of being perceived, which is driving flattened content, which is encouraged by algorithms that are promoting it. But it's really shape, it's really sad. It's really sad that we're not seeing people try that hard. It's really sad that trying hard is not deemed to be something to strive towards in so many circles. And I think that it's also really sad that the fear of failure is something so strong that we haven't thought about the possibility that we could fail and it could turn itself into something amazing. And I really love this essay for that actually is that camp could be perceived to be a failure, but it turns into something brilliant, and we never think about that possible. And in fact, I literally have on my laptop because sometimes I have what if thoughts right bad what if thoughts? What if it all works out? What if it's better than you expected? What if it's crazy? What if you end up being the most camp person on the Internet? And I don't think you're going to get there by posting a kind of sheake too flat? Lay of your bloody where are the cool girls eating? No, I really don't mean to judge anyone who is posting any of that content. I completely understand it. As I said, it's more criticism of the algorithms that are driving it, of the flattening of culture, of the sameness of it all, which creates such a boring space to be on. And again, it's not a criticism of the people that are creating the culture. But I do want to throw in some two cents at the very end, because I think by this point, you know, don't know who's still here. To be honest, my hot take is that at the end of the day, the people who are being the influence, who are being influenced the most by corporate capitalist interests on social media, are the people who want to be influencers. Now, I think that there is a level of application happening because if you want to be an influencer, you have to suck up to corporate interests. You have to be brand safe, and to be brand safe in twenty twenty six means not really revealing too much of your personality. Now, that's not gonna build you a parasocial relationship with an audience, but it is going to align you with corporate interests, and it is potentially going to align you with algorithmic interests. And I do think at the end of the day, this is the broader pattern, This is the broader puzzle piece, This is the broader jigsaw, is that we are blending ourselves, aligning ourselves more and more with corporate interests and hyper capitalism in a way that's stripping us of our muchty jes. On that note, guys, I'm gonna let you go. I hope you guys have a wonderful week ahead. Love you so much. Can to hear your thoughts. Make sure you follow the pod on Spotify. If you're on Spotify, rate at five stars on all platforms. Leave me a comment because I really want to know a thoughts. Subscribe If you're on YouTube, believe a comment there, like share with a friend all the things. I'm also on Instagram at from the Diving Board. I'm on TikTok at Charlie Chats and the two Essa's. I'm on Substack. I've been writing a little bit over there from the Diving Board as well. All the links are my description. Okay, love you, I will speak to you soon. Bye.
Speaker 1: Like, what does this even mean? What does toast? Toast is chic? What does that mean? Anything can be chic? An algorithm can be chic. Humans should strive, particularly in an era of AI despite the fact this was written in nineteen sixty four, humans should be striving for more than simply chic in what we put out and what we create and what we aspire to do. I don't think I could have come across this essay notes on camp by Susan Sontag at a better time. We have seen such a rise in the aspiration among influencers and just pretty much anyone posting online to be cool and to be niche. People telling you to lean in, to be that girl, to be the cool girl. And it really just has me thinking, what on earth does this all mean? What does it mean? It's giving le booboo Mark's grave kind of chic, like it's too much. Welcome to from the Diving Board, the show hosted by me Charlie Chats where we deep dive the hidden politics behind the screen. This podcast was recorded on the lands of the Waraundry waroring people of the Kulin Nation. I pay my respects to the traditional custodians of this land and elders past and present. I want to extend my respect to any Aboriginal and Toro Strait Islander listeners tuning in today. Sovereignty was never seeded. Brenda Hashtag, an influential person online who actually grew her following back in the Tumblr days, recently wrote a substack article that went pretty viral as well, where she also criticized the tendency for people to engage in AI templates and can the templates to create a certain style of content which I will put up on the screen. But essentially it's like the pastel text on screen's style content. You're saying, imagine someone in a particular outfit with pastel text on screen that could literally say anything and everything, could be interesting, could literally be the most basic phrase you've ever heard. Brenda Hashtag's argument was that is creating a level of creativity demise honestly online. Now. I actually have various thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree with their take in its entirety, but we're gonna get into that later in today's episode. Because I think these pieces form part of a broader puzzle. There is a much bigger picture here than simply criticizing the individual influences for what kind of content they're posting online, and that puzzle fits into hyper capitalistic values and the way in which these online spaces are causing us more and more to become and engage with these platforms in an inhuman way. Adding myself as a chronically online person, I believe that this kind of cheek to content, which by the way, kind of cheak too, can be literally anything kind of cheek to go on a walk, kind of chak to call your boyfriend, kind of chap to break up with your boyfriend, kind of chic to what Shrek on the weekends? Insert literally anything in the space after kind sheeke too. That's the vibe of the trend and this whole I want to call it entry level easy content. And I don't say that in a derogatory, judgmental way. I really say that in the way that it is genuinely so easy to create. I say that as someone who has participated in this trend. Okay, hypocrite, hypocrite alert. Now we've got that out of the way, let's continue with the episode. I think this trend started with Verona Farrell, or at least this was the first time I came across this style of content. She posted a series of TikTok videos where she was reading from a notebook. It was entitled things I find very rock and roll.
00:03:38
Speaker 2: These are some things that people do that I think are very rock and roll. Having a bush, giving someone your phone number on a piece of paper fabulous, Quitting your job without the next one lined up, just like trusting the gods.
00:03:49
Speaker 1: Like, if you're in the same algorithm as me, you probably did come across this as well, because it blew up, it went crazy. There were so many iterations of this by her, and then multiple people jumped on to the point where I think, now it's kind of a standard thing to see someone read from a notebook to the screen on TikTok, and usually I would say that kind of possesses or at least exudes this quality of intellectualism, which is definitely adjacent. I think with the desire to be niche, there's some sort of association with elitism, nichess intellectualism, and cultural cred which I think all combines into what it is that people are seeking when they want when they describe themselves as wanting to be a niche influencer, rather than a mainstream influencer. Whatever that even means when we have echo chambers and no one gets anyone else's references anymore. But I digress. You've probably had of the girl with the list who is a TikToker who for the last few years, every single video highlights a reason not to have children. You've also probably come across the trend where it's to say five things that are worth spending money on, and of course kind of seek to insert literally anything in that space. Feels like a bit of an offshoot of this list obsession. And I mean, from a very basic level, to write a list is probably the easiest thing you can write. And so when it comes to entry level easy content to partake in when you're time poor or you just want to throw your hat in the lottery, hat in the ring to potentially be seen go viral, et cetera. It totally makes sense why people want to make this kind of content. It totally makes sense. And this is particularly because right now, but a lot of people want to be influencers. I think right now, when we look at the scope of opportunity for young people, there's firstly like an abundance of opportunity, and there's definitely a decision paralysis situation happening. But by the same token, there's also severe uncertainty and overwhelm when it comes to how you actually even make decisions, because the future of what the world looks like, what the world looks like for your children, what the world looks like for yourself, is so up in the air. And obviously this is in reference to climate change, it's in reference to cost of living, it's in reference to the AI bubble, is in reference to literally, we can't predict what's going to happen next, because we're already living in what feels like dystopia. And I think a lot of young people are obviously kind of bound by this paralysis because firstly, as I said, there's all these options potentially, but actually, when it comes down to it, so little option and so many many people, Many young people lean into apathy and a sentiment that they kind of don't care about the situation when really deeply, I think a lot of us do or lean into nihilism, which ultimately sometimes translate and turns into absurdism, because if you can't control anything, why not just have fun? And this is something that I talk about on my video essay called the Politics of Whimsy, and you can find that linked in the description and also on my YouTube channel and on my podcast from the Diving Board. It's a couple of episodes back. And I think in a funny way, this is the reason why a lot of people want to throw their hat in with influencing and social media because it is such an absurd outcome to potentially win that algorithmic lottery and become the biggest name influencer. But it's also so absurd that you can even make a career and make lucrative money, like a lot of money from posting videos of yourself online. Not to mention that when you look at all of the alternatives, it's also an incredibly good career for work, life balance, for flexibility, if you're a parent or want to be a parent. That's obviously so many variables. And I think this is the kicker is that it seems so achievable, and so we see that on a regular basis, this rags to riches situation when it comes to influencing, which is obviously very aspirational. We all kind of want, like hello, who wouldn't want that? Like that's crazy, But it is actually such a strange situation because no other can offer this significant change in lifestyle, sometimes overnight. I would say, I would say pretty much no other job can do that. But no other job requires so much of your time, energy, and sometimes money before you even get the job, and under the guise that there's the possibility that you never will. And what I mean by this is we are giving, we are making so much content for these apps. We are giving so much of our lives, our personal information, our data to these apps. If we're posting with this kind of desire obviously to hopefully one day make it. But at the end of the day, they're getting a lot more from us than we're getting from them. And in fact, the chances of you making it are so low that it's a wonder why people keep on posting. And I think it's because that dream is just so enticing. But not only that, so many people are relying on this. The alternative jobs simply pale in comparison when it comes to finances, flexibility, cost of living, and a good work life balance. Why would you not try? Why would you not at least try? And so this is why I find the easier kind of entry level content being pushed by the algorithm. Quite fascinating on multiple different fronts, because I don't think it's fair to blame anyone for jumping onto a trend that is currently gaining traction if they genuinely want to make a living from this, and if they're trying to find a voice or a space or a community in influencing, if that's what they want to do, my criticism is never going to be on anyone who jumps on these trends. It's instead going to be on algorithms that promote, prioritize, and encourage sameness. And I think the biggest argument that is so necessary to talk about, particularly in the context of Brenda Hashtag's article, which ultimately I think did lean into blaming people fully for jumping onto these trends, and her argument was very focused on on the value in being creative and using creative energy to create content, and I do completely agree on many levels, but I think that the blame was placed on the wrong person, the wrong entity. The blame being placed on the person for jumping onto this trend is just so unfair when really it's the algorithm that's promoting these trends and sameness. As I said, and I think we need to acknowledge that social media AI driven algorithms still have white bias embedded within them. They still function on Eurocentric beauty standards and upholding the voices, platforms, and visibility of people that align the most with whiteness, proximity to whiteness, and Eurocentric standards of beauty, particularly when it comes to women, because these algorithms are trained on a history of racist start of Eurocentric beauty standards of information that has come from our society that then reinforces systemic race with what we actually see on our feeds and whose content is promoted the most. One of the creators that I noticed this argument coming from first was CMP in my season on TikTok, was that when you critique people, particularly when it's black women or women of color, for leaning into these trends, under the guise that you're saying, oh, it's not very creative to lean into this, you're completely stripping the situation from the systemic reality, which is that sometimes without leaning into these trends, your content will not be pushed out. And so can you really blame someone who's not benefiting from proximity to whiteness or eurocentric beauty standards for leaning into a trend that is obviously trending, that is obviously going to push your content out more. It's not just the fact that we're not seeing certain people. It's not just the fact that white bias promotes white faces. It's the fact that white bias promotes a lack of diversity of voice, of opinion, of problem solving, of information, of political information, of news. And this is really really dangerous. This is a flattening of culture that is really really concerning for the way in which we're absorbing information, Because the more and more and more we are on these apps, the less and less people are reading books, the less and less people are actually going to news websites to absorb our political information and news. And yes, of course, what I love to see a world where anyone and everyone who posts online is only doing it for creative purposes and there's no financial incentive involved. Obviously that would be my dream. But in order to achieve that, we need to achieve universal basic income. And I just don't think anyone would want to be on social media if we're in that reality, Like, I just don't think we would have the same desirability to be on our screens if we had universal basic income. So maybe that's actually the ultimate argument of this podcast episode. No, I'm kidding, but also am I. Typically with these trends, usually there is a hyper consumerist element to the way in which cool is being presented. Usually it's cool girls eat at X restaurant? Where do the cool girls go? What are the cool girls wearing? What are the cool girls doing with their spare time on a Friday night? And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I think that co opting cool, when you're using it to represent consumerism and hyper capitalism ultimately just becomes very uncool. And that's not to say again that like, if you've said this, you're uncool, But it's more that what do these words actually mean now? When everyone wants to be niche? What does niche mean anymore? All of these words lose their meaning because it's become this flattened trend which was never really meant to mean anything except for the fact that we jumped on because it was gaining likes, tractions, and shares. Ultimately, by creating this content, we're feeding back to the algorithm exactly what it's telling us it wants more of. And that's when we start creating a potentially problematic culture because we're being driven by the algorithms as opposed to us driving the algorithms. When algorithms favor this type of sort of flattened content over personal insight, over expressions of attempts to connect with audiences, and over personality and uniqueness, that's when we really have to start asking what the role of influencing actually is. At the moment, it makes me think of Instagram face and the result of algorithms ultimately driving our everyday life and our literal physical being and body. And I think about, honestly, the tendency or the desire to have cosmetic work done if you were in an industry that relied on your looks in some way or another, whether you're an influencer, whether you're an actor or singer, whatever. And I do think about the fact that we live in such a visual world now. These algorithms are so heavily dictated by standards of beauty that align so heavily with this Instagram face esthetic. I can understand in some way the desire to get work done to align more with that look, if it's going to mean that you're going to make more money. This is not to say this is the only reason you would get work done, but I think that there's definitely something to be said about the desire to get work done. If you were an influencer finding yourself in a situation where you didn't have as much work for a period of time, I could totally see how you might have work done to change your appearance in the hope that that would somehow push your content out more and therefore result in more brand deals. And this is again not a criticism of those people at all. It's a criticism of a system designed to drill into us that a certain look will give us more visibility and credibility, and that that translates into money. It's a criticism at the end of the day, of patriarchal capitalism and techno patriarchy as well. This idea as well, isn't new. I mean, the idea of getting cosmetic work done for an increase in potentially financial gain is something that I think a lot of people deal with on a regular basis in many different industries. The one that comes to mind is sex work. It's a really interesting conversation and one that I could definitely delve into further if you wanted an episode on that, because I find it very interesting, very nuanced, because ultimately, again this comes down to not a judgment at all on the people that end up leaning in, but actually a judgment on the system that prioritizes and values that, ultimately returning to sameness as this trend that it's being pushed by algorithms, I think it's really important to make the statement and acknowledge that culture is literally shaped by what we see online now. I think ultimately, when so many people lean into this trend, when it comes so expansive, when it's ever evermanned dog is joining in on this trend, it becomes very robotic and inhuman. Ultimately, there's no risk in posting this content, really if your fear is of being judged or perceived to be cringe, because everyone is posting this content. For the next part of the video, I want to talk about Susan Sontag's Notes on Camp. This is a book that has two essays in them, but I sped through them. They're really really good. But we're going to talk about the first one, which I have tagged so much of She essentially writes about this specific taste or sensibility as she describes that is camp, and I literally mean camp, as in like Lady Gargar's camp, Kylie Minogue camp. She describes a woman wearing a feather dress as also being camp. I think you kind of get the vibe. But she spends the entire essay describing this specific phenomenon of camp and how it's caught on so much in culture. But very importantly, she talks about the way in which taste and culture inform each other and are much more important than I think we like to let on or that we realize as a society. And the reason I bring this up is because I think that there is a very interesting conversation about this drive in cool niche chic, this very specific style of content, and our taste for that specific style of content, and what that actually means for broader culture. In relation to taste, she writes on page two, most people think of sensibility or taste as the realm of purely subjective preferences, those mysterious attractions mainly sential that have not been brought under the sovereignty of reason. But this attitude is naive. For taste governs every free human response. There is taste in people, visual taste, taste in emotion, and there is taste in acts. Taste in morality, intelligence as well is really kind of taste taste in ideas. Describing Camp itself, she writes, many examples of camp are things which, from a serious point of view are either bad art or kitch, not all, though, she goes on to say camp is the love of the exaggerated, the off of things being what they are. Not. Camp sees everything in quotation marks. To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand being as playing a role. Essentially, it's kind of like a playful recognition that we're all living a performance and that everything is kind of absurd and ironic. But interestingly and importantly, a very huge and important value of being camp is that the person or thing that ends up Camp usually tried to be very serious about what it was they were seeking to do. Usually they didn't set out to be comical, or to be ironic, or to be camp. Instead, they were really seriously trying to pursue something extravagant, something bold, and it ended up feeling a little bit off, which she makes a very strong point not to say that it ends up being bad, not to place moral value on whether or not Camp is good or bad, because it sits somewhere on a different scale. It's not on the good to bad trajectory. In fact, this is what makes Camp so inherently human. I think it is so inherently human to be able to see someone try really really hard to achieve one thing and to have that thing fail at achieving what was initially intended to be achieved, but end up being something different and sometimes better and appreciated more than it ever intended on being. And I think that's a very very human experience. I think that sincerity with which you tried to do something and it ends up being a bit off and a bit quirky and a bit awkward, but also a bit extravagant and fabulous. Gosh, that is hard for AI to do. Gosh, I don't think AI can do that. I really just don't, because it also AI inherently doesn't have that human quality that's required to even try in the first place. What was most crazy about this book? Genuinely this is crazy, Like did I have a premonition? I don't know because she literally writes when something is just bad rather than camp, it's often because it is too mediocre in its ambition. The artist hasn't attempted to do anything really outlandish. It's too much, it's too fantastic, it's not to be believed are standard phrases of camp enthusiasm. She goes on to say, without passion, one gets pseudo camp. What is merely decorative, safe, in a word, chic. If that's not enough reason to not aspire to be sheait, guys, I don't know what is. She literally just called Sheik lame and loser. I just wrote that there. She wrote that there. I just translated that for you. What I take from this essay is that camp is inherently human, where things like chic are not. Anything can be k, an algorithm can be ic, AI can be shek in what it creates. Humans should strive, particularly in an era of AI. Despite the fact this was written in nineteen sixty four, humans should be striving for more than simply chic in what we put out, in what we create, in what we aspire to do. But again, I think it's important to make the distinction that camp is not necessarily moral but in the context of camp being so inherently human, which is a specific quote that Sontag writes, she does say towards the end of her essay, camp taste is a kind of love, love for human nature. It relishes, rather than judges, the little triumphs and awkward intensities of character. Camp is a tender feeling, and in that regard, I don't think it really can be representative of a system that is so exploitative. I think that things that are camp can't really be made by AI, can't be adjacent to AI, and probably can't really be super adjacent to capitalism either. Funnily enough, though, when I was looking into this on TikTok, I did come across Etymology nerds TikTok video that he posted earlier this year, where he argues that AI Fruit Love Island videos are camp. He says that this is because they're inherently bad taste trying to be good, and because it takes itself so seriously despite being slop to that. My interpretation of Sontag's essay is that it really has to be a human who's trying, because actually I disagree that AI can even try at all. I don't think that AI is trying at all to be good because it has no ability to determine what's good or bad, and therefore I don't think AI slop can be camp. That's my take on the matter. But I'm also really interested in what your thoughts are. If you've read this book, if you have thoughts on what's camp, what's not camp, let me know, because I think that's really fascinating. As a side tangent. Anyway, let's actually I don't know how we got here, let's go back to what we were originally talking about. The reason I brought that all up camp, et cetera is because I think that there is a nervousness with trying at the moment. There's a fear of being cringed. There's a fear of being perceived, which is driving flattened content, which is encouraged by algorithms that are promoting it. But it's really shape, it's really sad. It's really sad that we're not seeing people try that hard. It's really sad that trying hard is not deemed to be something to strive towards in so many circles. And I think that it's also really sad that the fear of failure is something so strong that we haven't thought about the possibility that we could fail and it could turn itself into something amazing. And I really love this essay for that actually is that camp could be perceived to be a failure, but it turns into something brilliant, and we never think about that possible. And in fact, I literally have on my laptop because sometimes I have what if thoughts right bad what if thoughts? What if it all works out? What if it's better than you expected? What if it's crazy? What if you end up being the most camp person on the Internet? And I don't think you're going to get there by posting a kind of sheake too flat? Lay of your bloody where are the cool girls eating? No, I really don't mean to judge anyone who is posting any of that content. I completely understand it. As I said, it's more criticism of the algorithms that are driving it, of the flattening of culture, of the sameness of it all, which creates such a boring space to be on. And again, it's not a criticism of the people that are creating the culture. But I do want to throw in some two cents at the very end, because I think by this point, you know, don't know who's still here. To be honest, my hot take is that at the end of the day, the people who are being the influence, who are being influenced the most by corporate capitalist interests on social media, are the people who want to be influencers. Now, I think that there is a level of application happening because if you want to be an influencer, you have to suck up to corporate interests. You have to be brand safe, and to be brand safe in twenty twenty six means not really revealing too much of your personality. Now, that's not gonna build you a parasocial relationship with an audience, but it is going to align you with corporate interests, and it is potentially going to align you with algorithmic interests. And I do think at the end of the day, this is the broader pattern, This is the broader puzzle piece, This is the broader jigsaw, is that we are blending ourselves, aligning ourselves more and more with corporate interests and hyper capitalism in a way that's stripping us of our muchty jes. On that note, guys, I'm gonna let you go. I hope you guys have a wonderful week ahead. Love you so much. Can to hear your thoughts. Make sure you follow the pod on Spotify. If you're on Spotify, rate at five stars on all platforms. Leave me a comment because I really want to know a thoughts. Subscribe If you're on YouTube, believe a comment there, like share with a friend all the things. I'm also on Instagram at from the Diving Board. I'm on TikTok at Charlie Chats and the two Essa's. I'm on Substack. I've been writing a little bit over there from the Diving Board as well. All the links are my description. Okay, love you, I will speak to you soon. Bye.
