“Media consumption”
“Media consumption”: what a repulsive phrase—yet eerily befitting what it describes. The “medium” only, not any substance. A medium for what? What is being conveyed in it? And “consumption,” but what is being consumed? The medium conveys a toxin. It is used up each time, because each medium is only meant to convey the toxin, nothing else. Then, a “new” version will be created for the next dose, following the same exact design.
But when this phrase is used in reference to real art, it has a corrupting effect: in fact, real art is not “consumed” when one looks at it the first time; it’s possible to come back to it and benefit from it again and again. It can be transmuted and revitalized. But they want us to think of it as being consumed, so that we have to move on to the next thing, which will be one of theirs. And the term is wrong also because art is not a “medium” for some other thing—it is itself exactly. There is no representation in art, because everything stands precisely for itself.
They teach us, for example, that when we are exhausted after work, we should watch violent superhero movie slop. And only when we are ready to “analyze” what we “consume” may we dare to spend time with literature that has real artistic qualities. But it should be precisely the other way around: when we are tired, the subconscious is more open (e.g. to dreams), and this is an opportunity to, say, read books à la Água Viva or the like—what they try to call “difficult” art. Whereas analysis takes away the power of what it is being applied to by picking it apart and thereby killing it. We should not analyze beneficial art, we should let it work underneath in the subconscious reality in order to protect us from psychic toxins. We should read it “like when you look.” As for mass-produced slop, we should avoid it whenever we are open to being influenced by it; if we look at it at all, it should be analytically and thoughtfully, in order to keep ourselves safe.
See also
(From draft written April 11, 2025.)