Creatures that can internalize and hold onto information are allowed to think about their perception however they wish. There’s a tendency to categorize, assign, and create hierarchies based on the information internalized, and as this is the case, this means there is likely a belief that one piece of information perceived might have more or less value than another. Not everyone does this, but I think it has some merit and is generally true. To think all things as the same by choice is one thing, but to be ignorant of what is being perceived is another. Cognitively speaking, it’s going to take more effort to create a system of categorization and then execute it than to be ignorant or apathetic. However, I think at least for those who create, and this creation can be just about anything, this type of thinking is incredibly important. If one does not care about the value of one thing over another, why make anything better? Why do anything better? Why try any harder? Why push any limits? This type of thinking; not caring, I’m almost certain has led to a degeneration in all medias. I want to do my best to explain what I’m talking about further, give examples with specific types of medias, and then try to break down how to do this and normalize a higher standard of internalization, or really, influence.
Suppose you’re an artist; I mean this in the sense of working with physical mediums. To keep things simple, suppose you like to draw. You have the opportunity to be influenced by a lot of things, and for a lot of artists, especially in the beginning, they use life as a reference. You draw whatever it is in your perception at that moment, and continually refine, searching for what is important, so that you can put that on the paper. This is great, and very cool, but if the artist wants to step outside of the boundary of real-life to paper, then they might have to think a little more abstractly. Before even tackling that aspect, we have to consider how the artist even came to the conclusion that one detail is more important or significant than another.
If self-taught, without external materials explaining how to draw, what to look for, and much more within that realm, they are operating in, arguably, an unusual way. What they consider important whilst transferring the perceived information to paper is less based on what others have told them is important, unless they have received critique previously, but it’s more likely based on what they think is important. Of course, what they think is important is what they want to share. Yes, we could always wrap back around to a person being nothing but all their influences, some innumerable number of factors creating the person, but that’s not the point. The point is the present, and what is being done in the midst of the action. At one point or another, a person is able to, or so I’d hope, reassess their own thinking. What was important a year ago might be the same today, but it’s unlikely that every single thing you thought was important within any possible moment in the past year is still the same. Saying all this is a means to recognize what can be perceived as important can be altered.
If taught by a school, teacher, or friend, you have a direct influence instructing you on how to draw. They tell you what to look for, why you should focus on that, and then expect you to follow through on that. You might disagree, but nonetheless, if you want to continue being taught, you listen to their instructions. This isn’t a bad thing at all, I think this is actually a good thing. However, if you consider the pipeline of knowledge and experience, the original reference point for how to do something and why it’s done that way is based on the experiences of either one person or many people. There is a general consensus of what looks good, because good is almost intuitive, as the reference point of “good,” at least for most people, and in reference to art, is real life. There are styles, and styles are subjective, but there are core concepts, like proportions and perspective, which influence how one might perceive the artwork. They might not be aware they are judging the work based on those concepts, and many more, but they are, because those things are a part of their life; something they perceive every single day. The world is not static, however. There are always new methods, new ideas, and new ways to do the same thing. What needs to be focused on above all else is, other than select types of people, knowledge, and real-life, what might the artist also be influenced by?
The nations with internet are also the nations producing the media to be consumed on said internet, so that’s the context we’ll stay within. As an artist, you might have all these means of consuming and understanding what makes certain types of art good, and others not as good. Yet, anyone can rationalize why something is good or something is bad. There is no totally objective means of assigning these qualities to literally anything. What this is leading to is that the artist can be influenced by things that, perhaps, lack the same accuracy or nuance that something like real-life does. I don’t mean to say this is a problem, but as one can rationalize anything, no matter the label, this means the creator of said inaccurate piece can justify and explain what that piece really means. If someone then believes this, then in their mind, they will believe they can also do the same thing. Now, there’s a cycle, or the possibility of a cycle beginning. One person does one thing, another person is influenced and follows. What I have failed to mention is how harmful this can be, and in the context of artwork, I will attempt to give you a, even if marginally, objective-leaning assessment of good and bad.
Good is less about taste. The style doesn’t matter, but there are fundamentals to be expected, the expectation derived from what they experience in reality, and how far that can be dismantled before it is unrecognizable. Effort, too, could go along with this, but it isn’t necessary. A person could put all their effort into something and it still sucks, but by putting the effort in, they reach closer to having more, doing more; creating something better. One would have to exert effort, probably for a very long time, before not needing to apply the same amount. Not always needed, but very much welcome, is complexity. Inherently, complexity is not desirable. Defining complex in this case is more about the ability to differ between something done with intention, which is mentally complex, versus a complex piece. A complex drawing could be great, but it also could be a chaotic abstraction, which yes, is complex, but the complexity is drawn from the randomness; a lack of purpose in the action itself.
Bad is more about the lacking of goodness. If artwork fails to have an anatomically correct humanoid, anyone will be able to recognize this. Are there varying levels to the correctness? Yes, sure there are, but at some point, is becomes blatant. It might take a lot of effort to obtain that correct humanoid, but if an artist puts enough effort in over enough time, eventually, they’ll be able to draw what they want. Effort can come in other forms too. For example, a person taking an existing thing and doing more of it; taking an object and doing more of that object. In the mind of the creator, it took a lot of effort and holds significant meaning, but this thing, meaning, could never be derived from the thing created, as an outsider. To view meaning in something, that’s something the perceiver does; they assign the meaning to the thing. However, if the artist wants to say the creation has a different meaning, then sure, that’s okay. The point in which this becomes silly is when the creator and perceiver are on totally different pages of what something means. A chaotic abstraction might be something very specific and supposedly deliberate from the creator, but a perceiver would never be able to come to that conclusion, because, well, it’s abstract. Bad is the inability to execute fundamentals and there is a lack of recognizing correctness. If correctness is never acknowledged, then one could never have control over it. The only time one should be allowed to step out of the usual rules is after obtaining control.
In many cases, a person doesn’t know how much they’re being influenced. I would say it’s hard to find any exactness in this, but for the most part, you are more easily influenced as a child. As an adult, the things you know and are comfortable with, are less likely to change, because they have solidity; you’ve had them be a certain way for a certain amount of time, and you would expect, based on all that time, for it to continue being that way. What you can be influenced by as an adult are new things. Things you don’t know about, or haven’t thought about, and those things can influence other qualities that might have otherwise been static. In the information age, it is easier than ever to find something you haven’t seen before. Whether that might be a picture, a piece of writing, or a song; it could take on one or more qualities that you haven’t seen or heard. Those types of things are most likely to influence you, and this is okay, because if all is well, then those newer things are derived from things that are tried and true; fundamentals. Yet, if one generation is influenced by a generation previous who didn’t hold onto those fundamentals, one could only expect a continued degeneration, no? Of course, that would assume the entire generation acted a particular way, but if any number of individuals acted in that way, then some number of individuals will also be influenced, if information had been shared. This, again, is the power of the internet; anyone sharing anything can cause influence on anyone.
If you wanted to understand how to get to a point of being able to assess what you should or should not be influenced by, you have to categorize varying levels of quality. This might be easier with something like particular types of drawn or painted artwork; you can always use reality as a reference. However, being able to consider these things in the context of styles or different mediums; it can become a little more difficult. One suggestion, if I had to give one, would be to assess why you like something. Think about why you like it; consider what it has that other things don’t, but also, consider what it doesn’t have. If you see something you dislike, also do the same type of assessment. Search for those things while assessing. Meaning can be involved, yes, but I would suggest straying away from what the creator has to say about their work. There are many different types, but one creator might hate their work and think of it as horrible, while actually, it has taste and quality. Another type might say their work has some grand meaning, and give a long and lengthy explanation as to the true meaning, but the work itself is either abstract or lazy which would mean nothing to you if the explanation were absent.
For myself, when I listen to music, there are things I can hear which can dissuade me. Certain types of music don’t interest me as well, such as rap or hip-hop. I generally find the music to be misaligned with my taste; not to say it can’t be good or interesting, but it’s rare for me to find that or see that. If your creation has a trap beat repeating, I would expect lyrically, it to be very good, and in some cases, it can make up for the lack of sounds. Unfortunately, if not almost all that I’ve been exposed to, these types of music don’t bring me this. If I were deliberately searching for complex compositions, then yes, of course I’m going to be disappointed, but because I know what to look for, I want the best of what is actually being offered to me. If I listen to Bach, then I want something more complex, however, delicate and deliberate. It’s not the same exact interest when listening to Slipknot, for example. I wouldn’t apply similar expectations to things so different. When I’m categorizing, I recognize what category that thing belongs do, and then do judging and assessing based on the label that thing fits within. Something like, “music” would be too broad in this case, but I can break different types of music into genres, and if I wanted, break it down even further. However, in the end, the same rudimentary type of thinking is occurring: assessing what the piece does and does not have.
If I really want to make Baroque era classical music, what type of music do you think I should listen to? It’s a bit obvious, but it can be hard to see it so clearly. Yes, I should listen to Baroque era classical music. I will have to assess what it has, but I might listen to other types of music to see what those do and don’t have in reference to Baroque. Most people like a lot of things, and thus are influenced by more than one thing. This is okay, just know that it is going to play a part in your thinking, and be able to recognize while creating when that is seeping through. If your “classical” piece is just moving around power chords, maybe it isn’t so classical after all, and you’ll have to go back and reassess what you’re doing.
It might sound really tiring to always be in a state of analyzing, judging, and comparing whatever it is you’re perceiving. That’s because, well, it is. You don’t need to be in a state of doing these things all of the time, but if exposed to something new, it might not be so bad. If you do it enough, there is going to be some amount of known experience, or knowledge, which plays a part in how you feel towards something. If I hear something I’ve heard a thousand times before, I’m probably not going to be all that interested, unless I’m uncovering something new. It is this, newness, which is a dangerous beast. New does not inherently mean good or better, new is simply that; a beginning. Certain things have to be maintained to have coherency, and cutting other things out might make things confusing or outright embarrassing.
Being influenced by something means that the creator can also deliberately choose to enunciate or incorporate particular things which have the ability to change how you think or feel. It’s generally okay and accepted, this isn’t always harmful. The question to ask when you pick up on something like this, and these days it is embarrassingly obvious in many cases, is “why?” If someone wants you to believe something, consider why they want you to believe that, and then consider who or what is benefiting. A sly creator will take an idea and engrave it into the very fabric of the creation itself; the two things would be inseparable. Other creators, however, might take the thing they want people to believe and throw it on top of the existing creation or idea. Laziness is generally what could be aligned with “bad,” but once again, how one perceives being lazy is totally subjective. The action of not building with the thing you want others to consider is less than desirable, but that doesn’t stop many, and if that’s normalized, then people will keep on doing it.
Social issues are more obvious than anything. It might not even be issues, but the media is then a means to promoting something. Instead of a strong male protagonist, you have a strong female protagonist. This is fine, and if done well, it isn’t something to make note of; it just is. Unfortunately, by forcing this, it can decrease the quality of the thing. It isn’t about the sex of the protagonist, it’s about why the creator had decided the sex of the protagonist mattered, and how else that will play into the creation. People are influenced by medias, and if watching a show that has things play out a certain way, that will stick with them. Most of the time, especially movies and shows that want to promote something socially, there is a failure in the execution of the promotion. It almost always has to do with replicating reality, which not only is lame, but doesn’t help change anything. It can showcase an issue, but knowing about an issue doesn’t really make change these days, now does it? However, if you augment reality, even if it isn’t totally true, and someone consumes that, they might be more likely to think that is reality, and the more that someone consumes said media, and then shares that influence with others, the more people in general will accept that as reality. In accepting it, they act in accordance to it, and thus, you get what you want.
It doesn’t work this way all of the time. It isn’t so easy to flip switches in the minds of people, but to try doing it with nuance and care is more appealing than crudeness and delusion. If your mind so allows for it, search for where this is happening outside of medias you consume for enjoyment. Politically, why might one politician say one type of thing? Is it simply because they believe in it, or because they want a reaction from a particular group of people? Does a corporation truly care about its employees or is it simply the norm to say that one does? If you are a being that cannot do anything but be influenced, then there is the option to lazily take it all in without considering what it is you’re internalizing. You don’t have to care, but by not caring, you then continue the trend of a lack of care.
We cannot help ourselves but internalize information. In the information age, we mostly take in information through hearing and seeing. Focusing on these two senses, there is a limit to what can be perceived, but those limits are enough to work within for the purposes of deciding the quality of something. One can assess what makes something good or bad based on their own system of quality, and from there, decide why one might consume one type of media over another. This consumption, or internalization, then influences one to think and act in different ways. This is vital, especially as a creator, as what you consume you then create. In comes information, out goes information. That is based on what is perceived, and if perceiving things that lack nuance, and thinking that’s all there is, a lack of nuance will be created in their work. This is a degenerative affect; things continually getting worse as the cycle of worse is slowly accepted. If you have to be influenced, you should consider what you’re being influenced by. Consider why you or anyone else would like or dislike something, and use those contingences to help consider why one thing is better than any other thing. This might not be an easy task, and it isn’t, but it will help you and others around you. You will create better, and you will influence others to create better, thus having an uplifting affect, rather than degradation.