How do you feel about the term “content creator” as an artist?

[akitsukino]

Just curious. There’s something about the term that feels vapid and shallow, but if your an artist/illustrator who wants to be paid for what you make is the that term ACTUALLY INACCURATE?

Even if you consider the art you make important and worthwhile there’ll probably still be a lot of people who just view it as something to consume to pass the time. In your own eyes you’re “an artist creating pieces to share with a community” but in a lot of people’s eyes you’re “a content creator who is clout chasing ”

The motives of why ANYONE posts content publicly to the internet can be varied, but with how similar they can look on the outside is the line between an “artist” and “content creator” on the internet really that big? Is it just a distinction without a difference?

[joannekwan]

I personally prefer just "creator" since I'm not only an artist, but also writer, merch designer, graphic designer, and other things I can't think of at the moment.

But I don't look down on "content creators" either, I just see it as a catch all term for people who make stuff that can't be as easily condensed into specifics. Like people who just do tiktoks, or youtubers who make videos on the various things they enjoy. They aren't always specifically reviewers, comedians, directors, teachers, or storytellers, but they just make "content" that audiences like.

[IndigoShirtProd]

It's a broad, all-encompassing term that applies to everyone who produces content for the internet whether that be illustrations or video content. I do think the term is applicable to most people on the internet, but nonspecific enough that it's understandable that one type of creator would want a title more in line with what they do.

I personally don't see "content creator" as a vapid term. It's far more endearing a term in comparison to others that can describe who make stuff for the internet such as influencer. So I'd rather the former over thr latter.

[vapidink]

I don't mind it because it's kinda accurate. I am a content creator for all sorts of content. I'm not just a writer or an artist and my main goal is to create content people can enjoy. I see why someone would dislike the way it kind of lumps everyone together, but I don't think the term is used maliciously.

[cherrystark]

I generally prefer the term "artist" but I do like the simple term of "creator".

I'm not a huge fan of the term "content creator" because, for me, I don't see a lot of "creativity" behind it. There are some content creators/influencers that I generally think are talented, they do a lot of scriptwriting and are just generally funny. It takes talent to be genuinely funny and not be offensive. I also follow a few book YouTubers who have a talent for literary analysis. Giving an unbiased review on books and giving an analysis of different writing tropes without letting their egos get in the way is also a talent. THEN there are the vloggers who are just recording every aspect of their day or playing mean jokes on their partners. While they might be talented business people and I have nothing personally against the people who make money that way, they aren't "creating" anything of value. They're literally only creating generic "content", like the Kardashians.

Yes, everything I make and share online is "content", I am trying to make art and stuff that I'm proud of.

[hakei]

I feel the term "content creation/creator" rose recently, with the growth of online monetization. I know advertisers and marketing companies were already using the phrase "content marketing" before but it wasn't something I'd seen apply to what individual people make.

So I still associate "content" with advertisements, stuff that corporations make to drive consumers to buy their stuff. Something to be eaten up without much value.

That said, I also understand that "content creation/creator" nowadays is used in a neutral way, a simple and catch-all phrase for what we online creators do. We don't just create our comics, we also are advertisers, designers, social media managers, short video creators, etc. I still prefer being called an artist or a creator though

[Katzalcoatl]

Like @IndigoShirtProd said a content creator is anyone who creates content for the internet be it an artist, a writer, a streamer, a youtuber, memes, etc.

Being an artist does not make you a content creator just like being a content creator does not make you an artist (you could be a streamer content creator).

Basically a content creator is a huge category in which multiple people can fit in. Be it a streamer, a tiktoker, a youtuber, an artist, a novelist, etc.

Many artists who make a living out of art are not content creators. They do private art for their own clients and they do not perform any kind of entertainment for the general public.

Artist who do make their own comics that they share on the internet are content creators but that doesn't make them any less of an artist. You can be both a content creator and an artist the two terms mean different things.

[river121693]

I understand that it's a catch all term for shared online creations, but I hate it. Unlike terms like "artists" "cinematographers" "editors" etc. it centers the product rather than the human and labor, reducing what we make to a product, rather than the craft. I think it's emblematic of how anyone relying on social media for their work are now just content machine, expected to just churn out content for consumption.

Like, my comic isn't just "content" to be gobbled up. It's an extension of me as a person, it's art, it's multitude of skills, it's the years of labor I put in.

[RedLenai]

I don't think is inaccurate at least on my case...
I create content, from personal work, illustrations, comics, commissions, fanart, shenanigans, vine compilations. games I play, cooking, other media I react to and that, basically all that I share on socials is still content, so.... yeah, I'm a content creator. And with social media and how we need to rely on it, yes, we have to "create" content in order to generate engagement, be involved with followers, generate interest and other things.

The thing is, because anyone can be a content creator regardless of skill, a lot think that being called that belittles the title of "artist", but personally... even that word is associated to a certain status as someone who has a skill, in my case, someone who makes a living out of their creative hobby, that is an artist for me, especially if it associates with audiovisual arts.

To be honest, we can put all the value of the world to our works but that doesn't necessarily translate nor is respected by an other that hasn't been on our shoes, thus, even before the word "Content" existed, what you create is still a product that is going to be consumed and demanded, if you think that said thing you've created and is fullfilling it's purpose is getting it's value lowered because of a word that is literally a somewhat synonym to another, because most don't do these mental gymnastics, just correlate the word to the specific type of product or media, then... that sounds to me more like a personal self-steem issue.

[thepenmonster]

It makes me think of some hapless fools breaking their backs just to get 0.000001% of whatever revenue the giant tech company earns from the people coming to see the content because over the past 20 years we've all agreed that the internet should be made of people who earn nothing for their labor for giant tech companies.

[BoomerZ]

It's better than being called a "creative".

[VibrantFox]

i don't hate it but something about how some folks use it, especially "content" in specific for the way it kind of commodifies creativity branding it as some product to be consumed than an expression of thought or emotions

i'll definitely take it over influencer like others have mentioned but i'd still like to be referred to as an artist, a writer, a creative or just a creator than a "content creator"

hell there was a tumblr post i remember seeing that expressed a similar frustration with use of the term content creator that summed up my emotions more eloquently than i can right now but yeah it's like i get the whole "catch all term" but it still kinda irks me

[stiatent]

Content creator is good to me, bec it feels like an umbrella term for the various creative stuff I do other than digital art. already doing comics, interested in doing videos with the comics, plan to film shorts in future 'in person' too and also I dabble in recording arts on the side - so all fit the term content creator'

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of being called a graphic designer lol, in my home country they call everything digital art related that, but graphic design to me sounds more like ppl who do logos and promotional imagery for a public service or event. I respect the hard working graphic designers out there but I'd rather be called Content creator over Graphic designer any day XD

[Nugtown]

No, because it feels demoralizing. Artist already encompasses pretty much anything in any creative category, the only person who needs to be called a content creator is a person who doesn't consider what they make art. So artist works just fine because i'm making art.

[DualDragons]

I'm perfectly fine with it

[Ordinaryaverageguy]

It does sound a little bit like a "corporate asset".

[darthmongoose]

I can't say I've ever really seen the term used when it wasn't talking very broadly about a bunch of people who make lots of different stuff on the internet, like art, writing, videos etc. rather than specifically about people who all make the same thing. Like if I was talking about a group that included webcomic creators, youtubers who make video essays, and writers of interactive fiction on Twine.... does "Artist" sound correct to refer to that whole group? Not really.

I'm a content creator. It's my job. My skillset is so broad, my day job resorted to the title "Creative" because it was hard to really describe what I do with just "Illustrator" or "Writer" or "Designer", and even outside of my day job, some people might know me as the artist and writer of Errant, a webcomic on Tapas, others might know me as the creator of the DM's Guild Mithril-selling D&D class, the Spellbinder, or as an admin of the Voxus voice acting group, or as artist on over 10 published indie games, or an illustrator on books, or the designer of logos and even websites.... I'm not just an "Artist", and at a certain point, calling myself "3D/2D Artist/Writer/Games Designer/Graphic Designer/Voice Actor..." starts getting ridiculous. I make content that people enjoy across many genres and in many media, and personally, I'm not ashamed of that. I'm proud of that! Yeah, I made content. I make damn good content!

I don't really get what's insulting about the term "content". A box has contents, and those contents can be good or bad. A book has contents; it even has a "Contents Page" listing...the contents. It's a neutral term, it just means...stuff contained within. I don't transcend that somehow. I make a silly webcomic about magical knights, and it's one of many works I've made, and I don't expect it to be remembered as some great work of literature in twenty years... but then, the reason Shakespeare's works were so good, and why a number of them were lost to time, is because he didn't expect his works to be regarded as great literature either. He was just making content for the theatres, to entertain people and please his clients. A lot of our great works of art and literature were simply created to be "content", often paid for by a client for private enjoyment (like the Mona Lisa), or to be serialised entertainment (the works of Charles Dickens), and it doesn't stop them being good.

Personally, I'm a fan of this quote from Don Simpson:

"The pursuit of making money is the only reason to make movies. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art... Our obligation is to make money, and to make money it may be necessary to make history, art or some significant statement."

Being created as "content" doesn't stop a thing from potentially being great art worthy of academic critical analysis, or of being preserved for the ages. But if you make stuff that isn't fit for audience consumption, it's only an act of self-gratification... and that's fine if self-gratification is your aim, but people won't remember a work or praise you as a great "artist" or "writer" if they can't connect with it or find it. Being able to make content the audience actually wants to engage with is an important skill, and you're not somehow better and more pure by lacking it or never trying to develop it.

[Legendofgenii]

I call myself a dabbler.

[moontokkym]

I feel like it's technically accurate, but very non specific. Like it's the umbrella term for anyone who regularly post stuff online.

I prefer illustrator or comic book artist because they're more specific and tell people more about what I actually do, but I'm not going to get angry about being called content creator. I guess it's like being called "you're part of his family" when you're his mother. It's not wrong, just broad.

[DarkSena]

I agree with most things being mentioned in this thread lol I also do not appreciate the term "content creator" myself and would leave it without the content. Creator really does sound more than accurate for the most of us varying from videos, art and others.