chirasul

I AM TTHEGGR FN SJFKN GOMMR BAOSLQP

I'm Chirasul!

I'm a mushroom!

I am a storyteller and artist. I will sometimes post NSFW things. This is my main account.
I am working on a cool project called Coelary, which is about about a lot of things but it's mostly about being a queer adult.

 

   ✨✨✨🍄✨✨✨

    I'm non-binary.

   ✨✨✨🍄✨✨✨

 

OTHER ACCOUNTS:

  🎨  @CWF (art account)  🎨

  🐛 @coelary (bug people)  🐝

  🔞 @inkycap (it's porn!)  🔞

 

Please give these accounts a follow if you enjoy the things I make and you want to see more.



chirasul
@chirasul

calling my work "content" just to piss off people who get pissed off when creative work is referred to as "content" sorry for being so content


chirasul
@chirasul

like i know where we're coming from here. the way capitalism commodifies creative work feels minimizing and dehumanizing! it's true. but i dont think the verbage in use is actually a really important factor in that.. we're getting mad a symptoms instead of root causes here. goofy shit. also "creative content" is a really useful shorthand if you work in a kind of ad hoc multimedia fashion where grouping all of your output (output intended for an audience, as it were) is difficult to describe otherwise. i just dont think this is a hill worth dying on


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @chirasul's post:

in reply to @chirasul's post:

on the one hand, I agree it's only a symptom of the problem. on the other hand, I will never call my own work "content," I think the words we choose ARE important! right there at the beginning, you said "creative work" - acknowledging that creative output IS work, is labor, is something I place value on and I try to use phrases like that instead whenever possible. the way I communicate about my work does seem to reach the people who care about it most, who see it as the result of labor and training and time investment, and I value that type of connection with my audience. idk! in enough time we'll be calling creators and their output something else anyway.

i just think the waters are really muddied as to what "content" even means. in the internet/smartphone era, the word "content" used in the sense of a website being a container, a container that gets sent from user to server to user, and whatever is in that container is the contents. the contents of the container. that can be images, that can be animations, that can be music, that can be video, that can be interactive code, that can be games, it can be things we dont even have words for yet. thats neither good nor bad; it's an effective collective shorthand. the fact that app- and web-based corporations have been using it as their shorthand for "what the website delivers" just makes sense to me. thats what they do, they deliver stuff to people who want stuff. that's not a judgement of the stuff, or the people accessing that stuff.

and for multimedia creators, saying "content" is just a really much easier thing to say than "animations and sculpture and stickers and drawings and paintings and videos and illustrated short media". words do mean things, it's true; i just feel like the words we use for engaging with art and media ("experiencing" "interacting" "engaging" rather than "consuming", for example) are more important than the words we used to describe the media itself.

i just feel like splitting hairs about this one word doesnt actually do anything for the artists creating the work; it just gives people one more thing to argue about without creating any impetus to engage with art

in the sense you describe it as "what goes in a website", yeah, content logically follows. I'm not sure people are making that connection generally, though. and I think from a creative perspective, we don't want our work to be seen as interchangeable or just filler, which are also connotations the word "content" may have. I definitely agree that the words we use for actually experiencing and engaging with creative work are critically important as well. The angle of "consume thing then wait to consume next thing" is more of a challenge to framing the value of any creative output than what we call the actual output.

I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time arguing about necessarily but it is nice to be able to talk about it and hear each others' perspectives in a like, normal human being way that is really not very common on the internet these days. or maybe ever. cohost has that good vibe and I am grateful for it

honestly I just want people to respect their own art practices more- calling a webcomic 'content' and a vtuber's streams 'content' doesn't sit right with me. they're not the same. but it IS a useful shorthand for multimedia artists lol.

yeah i REALLY want people to respect and value their own art outside of capitalism, and maybe the discussion around "content" is a doorway into that... i definitely value the power of words so honestly its probably a net positive for people to talk about it. i guess it just seems like a lot of vitriol about "content" just seems like a solution in search of a problem. it so often seems to inspire people to just police the way their fellow artists' talk without meaningfully addressing or affecting the way they make art or share it. art is equally valuable if you call it "content" or not, and i think talking about the inherent value of art, shared or private, sold or unsold, can get us really far. maybe, if nothing else, the discussion around "content" can help people feel meaning behind the words more than we did before

yeah reducing stuff to quippy arguments isn't super useful when it's an extremely complicated convo (I am guilty of this sometimes lmao) that also needs to convince people to value themselves more. a lot of visual artists specifically really forget that what we do is amazing. sure, it feels like maybe you're one of a billion other painters or whatever online, but you're using your hands and mind in a way that some people only DREAM being able to do!! cherish that!!