>When you use any social media, you're not really choosing what you're looking at. You just scroll and the site decides what you're going to look at next.
Not necessarily. I'm into a very particular sort of painting and I have been totalitarian with Instagram about showing me that content and not other stuff. It works splendidly as long as I'm consistent.
Thanks to Instagram, I have been introduced to tons of painters I would not have been otherwise.
Is it better to be introduced to tons of painters vs fewer but in more detail? Or being told about a painter by someone in person vs by an algorithm?
In the 90s you only had certain songs if you knew someone who had it on cassette and you borrowed it and put it on your mixtape. Throughout the interaction, you also got initiated deeper into the culture of that thing in person.
I also notice that families rarely sit together nowadays to look through vacation photos. The pictures are taken, but people either don't have time to sort them and curate them. When film had a price, you only took fewer ones but it was more intentional. Then the fact that you only saw the picture once you were back at home, generated excitement that you could share and relive candid moments. Now people upload stuff on Instagram but it's intended to a generic audience, much unlike browsing through an album on the couch.
I meant the niche long tail stuff, since the commenter mentioned "tons of painters I would not have been otherwise". The equivalent in music would not be on MTV.
I applaud your consistency and effort to curatr your feed which is certainly technibally possible but i am quite sure you are the exception to the rule.
Not necessarily. I'm into a very particular sort of painting and I have been totalitarian with Instagram about showing me that content and not other stuff. It works splendidly as long as I'm consistent.
Thanks to Instagram, I have been introduced to tons of painters I would not have been otherwise.