Hacker News Reader

> The contrary is almost certainly true: picking fights with well-selected made up enemies is an effective way to promote a brand that is based on virtue.

I concur. Anecdotally, I see lots of content from TikTok creators replying to negative comments. At first I wondered why they seemed to be only amplifying negative responses instead of their fans, and then it hit me - those were the videos that did well (i.e. those videos got the most likes, views, shares). Showcasing a "hater comment" turns on the video viewers' tribal instinct. We want to side with the creator, to show the hater their place.

If this is actually the first time he's been criticized, the critic may be correct. If he starts getting more criticism and always reacts like a drama queen who has been terribly wronged and behaves very unprofessionally, the people who were fans because he was "nice" may start disappearing.

And that could hurt his bottom line. People there for the drama may not be paying customers. They may essentially be internet trolls.

That's what the critic suggests, yes:

> In fact, the only way I can understand Rodriguez’s incredibly thin-skinned reaction to my article is that he has managed to rise to this status of apex visibility without any kind of critical writing about him at all.

edit: oops I see in your other comment you quoted that part!

What's more amazing to me is that the artist doesn't even seem to understand what a critic _does_ - like what is the critic doing? He's not "gatekeeping" (what gate? the artist is famous, getting rich, and has a gallery show!) and not jealous or a 'hater'.

Like I understand that artists traditionally dislike critics, for obvious reasons, but usually they know the purpose of criticism. As the author says he is trying to both put the art in context of other art and to consider how social media figures into the art.

> And that could hurt his bottom line. People there for the drama may not be paying customers. They may essentially be internet trolls.

That's the magic of the "attention economy" - the people that get emotionally invested in the dramas surrounding you are better than "paying customers", because they check their brains out and switch to ingroup/outgroup mode - at which point you can sell them absolutely anything whatsoever. In contrast, paying customers are just annoying - they have opinions, and aren't going to give your person the time and sustained attention - the kind of following that both you and the platform you're on can effectively monetize through friction (i.e. continued ad exposure).

Right now this seems to be the generic recipe for printing money on social media:

1. Become an influencer and work at it until existing influencers treat you as one of their own;

2. Start engaging in the semi-regular, petty, totally not scripted fights with your fellow influencers;

3. Sign a deal for putting your name on some random bullshit commodity product, like idk. eyeliners or perfumes or makeup kits, and watch money roll in.

4. Optional: bonus points if you can turn that deal info a story of two influencers having a falling out over who gets paid for the bullshit product from point 3. You can milk that kind of thing for years, all the while selling your audience the same or different flavor of bullshit with your name on it.

Similar things happen between countries during wars. The only difference is that people die horribly instead of just sending mean messages to each other.

I agree. And I think the artist knows this, as he ended the campaign against the critic with a “I’ll teach you a lesson that love is better than hate” or something and asking his followers to follow the critic.

You forgot the second part of that post: "I think that's what he wants but doesn't know how to go about it". Which is, to me, clearly another jab at the critic, as if Ben is just trying get followers.

> Some kind of "long arc of history bends towards justice" make-believe.

I find it fascinating that you can look at the long arc of the moral universe and see it any other way. The only reason I can think of is that you’re staring at just the last few decades trying to discern a pattern, or even looking for the bend itself in the present. But if you take a step back and look at all of human history (and what we know about pre-history), how can you see it any other way?

I believe that long-arc moral ideas are debatable when applied to history. I personally don't believe it and unless we want to get into some deep discussion on history, politics and metaphysics we are unlikely to get anywhere. But I respect the position when applied in a correct context.

However, it is another thing to apply a supposed multi-generational trend, one that requires us to "step back" as you say, to the tactics of an individual playing the social media game. It's like the difference between the tide and an individual wave in the middle of the ocean.

Sure, if you look at the narrativized version of European human history the way we first conceived of it in the early Renaissance period, there's no other way to see it. It's called living at "the imperial core" for a reason.

World history just tends to be a bit more complicated than that and looking at history as a combination of "overcoming monarchy", "increased technical complexity" and "line goes up" might leave you with a limited view feeding into your pre-existing biases.

Well said.

It's either that he's very ignorant to how the internet works, or he has to say this for his own PR reason.

After he's had 15 of these hissy fits, even the dumbest of his followers will start to catch on

That’s a very optimistic view of group dynamics. And one easily disproven by the following of one Donald T.

Much more likely is that after a few cycles those still involved have made it part of their identity.

DT's persona isn't a feel-good wholesome diverse kid but a wrathful temple cleanser.

> And one easily disproven by the following of one Donald T.

That is not so. Donald Trump followers are not a static set. DT does lose and gain followers.

What might be true that some persona, no matter how disagreeable, will always have some followers.

Convicted criminals get love letters from strange women and all that.

If this artist continues in that way, most of his followers will come to consist only of people who are attracted by his obnoxious personality, without any connection to the works he creates. In the eyes of the world at large, he will just be that kitch-producing wanker with the idiot followers.

Trump supporters indicate otherwise.

some people are dumb as hell and or like drama / lack critical thinking skills.

Plot twist: This is another PR stunt that the critic is in on.

I didn't know who the artist in question was before today, but now I've at least heard of them, so it appears to be working.

Not sure if a professional art critic and writer are willing risk their career and reputation for a tiktoker and some money, it's their job to be objective. It's also the wrong market, would any "serious" or snobby art collector buy the tiktoker painting? Likely be a hard no

It is possible but unlikely. Of course, the idea of the "heel" [1] is well-established. But I find it hard to believe someone with an established career as a sober art critic would volunteer for the kind of negative attention this brought.

I do believe that sometimes these kind of antagonistic partnerships could arise spontaneously. For example, the art critic may find his own tribe standing up for him. That may goad him into looking for a similar reaction from other art influencers in an attempt to forward his own career. However, that doesn't require coordination between them or conspiracy.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel_(professional_wrestling)

> This is completely false

> The contrary is almost certainly true

You seem to be contradicting yourself.