The algorithms that shape our cultural landscape are not inherently malicious. They are indifferent. Their purpose is not to destroy art but to optimize engagement—a goal that, while profitable, is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of artistic innovation.

For Millennials, the first generation to grow up with these technologies, the... See more

The algorithms that shape our cultural landscape are not inherently malicious. They are indifferent. Their purpose is not to destroy art but to optimize engagement—a goal that, while profitable, is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of artistic innovation.

The question is not whether algorithms can ever foster greatness—they cannot. Their design is fundamentally at odds with the qualities that define great art: depth, complexity, and the capacity to provoke discomfort or transformation. The question is whether we, as creators and consumers, are willing to resist their influence.

Resistance does not... See more

One of the most insidious effects of algorithmic curation is its redefinition of success. In the pre-digital age, greatness was measured by critical acclaim, cultural impact, or historical longevity. Today, it is measured by metrics: views, likes, shares, and subscriptions.

This shift has profound implications for creators. To succeed in an... See more