Negativity drives "engagement" and harms thoughtful art discussion

     Something I've been mulling on for a while is how a certain flavor of online media analysis has shaped how people engage with art- be it visual art, writing, film, etc- and it's seriously lowering the bar of discussion. Largely this type of discussion revolves around negative reactions to media without taking an in-depth look at themes or context and it is very arbitrary. In simple terms, a lot of this discussion comes to us in the format of "snark", a style of catty review that was popularized in the internet of the 00's and generally focuses on elements being inaccurate or just not up to the author's personal standards. While "snark" can be funny to some, it is a shallow way of approaching media and bases itself mostly on kneejerk off-the-cuff reactions. It adds very little to a person's understanding or appreciation of art. 

    The next evolution of the "snark" style is the YouTube phenomenon of "reaction" videos, which is more of the same- having an over-the-top reaction to whatever is happening on screen. It can be entertaining but adds nothing real to the discussion. A react video of someone watching Eraserhead is functionally the same as someone filming their reactions to 2 girls 1 cup.

    Of course, not every person needs to be deeply analyze works of art, but I do find it worrying when a large group of people just parrots the opinions given to them by some internet taste-maker who's here to list every plot gap or "wtf moment" in a film. Worse yet is the seemingly endless hunger that internet audiences have for lists that "rank" various things. The WORST movies of all time. Top 10 most wtf sci fi outfits. 20 book covers that should never have been made. YouTube is replete with this crap. Lists are very easy to make and it is simple content to create and monetize, hence the prevalence of listicles and content aggregators online. They add very little of value and serve to generate clicks, clog up search results, and cater to our shortened attention spans. It's junk food.

    Another worrying aspect of the negative snarking and rating style of engagement is that there is very little space for appreciating works of art without couching one's love of the unusual in some sort of negativity or irony- some of which is frequently informed by heteronormativity, racism, transphobia or homophobia. I'm thinking in particular about the number of blogs dedicated to "bad" science fiction book covers and how often the "bad" ones have homoerotic overtones. How often is "bad" costume design in a sci fi film or tv series something that dresses men in a traditionally feminine way? Something to think about when you have your wtf reaction to something that doesn't fit a cultural norm.

 A friend of mine who runs a blog dedicated to design in television and film mentioned that they were told they should make a youtube channel ranking or rating outfits, when the aim of their blog is to be an archive of high quality pictures of costumes and to explore the careers of different costume designers- not to rank or critique them. The idea of something existing as a reference or resource seems alien to an audience that wants a taste-maker to dictate opinions to them. And referring to my previous point about people's responses to costumes being informed by their own biases, there's no doubt in my mind that the audience would just want a disparagement of the designs that look the most gay.

    When I read a review of a book or a film, I don't want a technical breakdown of mistakes a la Cinema Sins (something that might better be relegated to a continuity errors page on imdb) or an affectation of snark in the style of The Nostalgia Critic. I would just like to read a balanced and thoughtful exploration of the work. I may not necessarily agree with how you feel about a work or what you see in it, but taking the time to discuss it is worthwhile.