In the contemporary digital landscape, a paradigm shift has occurred in how audiences engage with cultural artifacts. From cinema to music, the way we consume culture has undergone a conceptual transformation. Today, the medium has not only become the message but has begun to eclipse the artistic substance itself. Through the lens of what I call “fakism,” this article examines the transition from aesthetic appreciation to algorithmic and interface-driven consumption.
The Dominance of the Conduit
In my work of analyzing culture, specifically music, I write extensively about composers and new releases: albums, singles, and EPs. However, I also cover the mechanics of the industry, including the differences between digital consumption mediums. I have noticed a staggering trend in reader engagement: whenever I write about digital services, debating the merits of Spotify versus Apple Music, Deezer, or YouTube, the engagement is exponentially higher than when I review a new musical release or even a landmark performance of a masterwork, such as Beethoven’s Coriolan Overture performed under the baton of Herbert von Karajan.
This is not merely an anecdotal observation; it is a documented sociological phenomenon. As Morris (2015) argues in Selling Digital Music, Formatting Culture, the digital format is not just a neutral container; it actively reconfigures our social and cultural relationship with music, often prioritizing the “commodity” of the stream over the art of the song.
This gap suggests a radical shift in consumer priority: the platform is no longer a transparent conduit; it has become the primary object of interest. Historically, the medium (vinyl, cassette, CD) was considered secondary to the audio content. However, in the age of platform capitalism, the “how” has begun to dwarf the “what.” This mirrors a broader sociological trend where the environment of consumption supersedes the nutritional or aesthetic value of the substance.
The Psychology of Platform Preference
Research into platformization suggests that user interfaces (UI) and user experiences (UX) now act as the primary gatekeepers of cultural taste. As Nieborg and Poell (2018) highlight, the “platformization” of culture means that the technical logic of the platform begins to organize how we produce and consume art. When a listener asks which platform a playlist is on before inquiring about the genre or artist, they are acknowledging the power of the ecosystem over the art.
Studies in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) indicate that the “frictionless” nature of these platforms creates a psychological dependency. Prey (2018) notes that platforms use “algorithmic individuation” to create a feedback loop that prioritizes the delivery system over the depth of the content. The result is a new consumerist norm: for many, the method of consumption has become more important than the content being consumed.
The Deepening Shadow of “Fakism”
This is what I call “fakism”—a false surface that obscures our reality and dictates how we engage with the world. Fakism is the process by which the interface becomes more “real” to the consumer than the art it contains. It is a form of cultural shorthand where we mistake the convenience of the delivery for the quality of the substance.
In the grip of fakism, our critical faculties are redirected. Instead of debating the harmonic complexity of a Mahler symphony, the intricate counterpoint of Bach, or the lyrical depth of an independent contemporary composer, we debate the bitrate of a codec or the aesthetics of a UI. This creates a secondary reality where the brand of the vessel (the platform) grants more social capital than the knowledge of the contents. We are no longer patrons of art; we are patrons of services. Fakism masks the erosion of our attention spans, allowing us to feel “cultured” because we navigate a sophisticated app, even if we are only passively absorbing a background track.
This has become so embedded in daily life that it often goes unnoticed. We track our steps on an app, striving to reach a digital goal without considering the physical necessity of the walk. We decide to “watch Netflix” or “watch Amazon Prime” rather than choosing a specific director, genre, or style. We share a “100-day streak” on Duolingo regardless of how much of the language we have actually mastered.
A layer of virtuality has been added to our lives where we act without considering the why. Are we traveling to experience a place, or to curate an image for a feed? Are we running for health, or because an app demanded it? Fakism suggests that we are slowly losing the agency to choose what we consume, instead opting to choose a platform and accepting whatever it throws at us.
The AI Incursion: The Replacement of Human Intent
The danger of fakism becomes even more acute with the rise of Artificial Intelligence. Because consumers have become habituated to consuming through the conduit—and have grown increasingly indifferent to the specific origins or intentions of the content—the stage is set for a quiet revolution.
If the “what” no longer matters as much as the “how,” AI-generated content can seamlessly fill the void. As Bonini and Gandini (2019) observe, when the first week of a release is “editorial” (human-led) but the subsequent weeks become “algorithmic” (machine-led), the distinction between human intent and automated output begins to blur. Since the platform’s interface is the primary point of contact, a listener under the spell of fakism may not notice—or care—if a melody was composed by a human or generated by a Large Language Model to fit a “Lo-Fi Study” mood.
Given that platforms like Netflix have already become ambient fixtures of our daily lives, often relegated to the background of our attention, one must ask: does it still matter if the content being streamed is AI-generated? For some, the sheer novelty of algorithmic creation may even prove more ‘exciting’ than the human intent it replaces.
If we continue to prioritize the interface, AI will not need to “beat” human art in a contest of quality; it will simply replace it by being the path of least resistance within the platforms we already favor.
Conclusion: Peeling Back the Layers
We must acknowledge that while UX, pricing, and data ethics are vital conversations, they must remain peripheral to the aesthetic experience. Fakism thrives when we prioritize the interface over the individual and the container over the contained. To reclaim the value of art, the audience must consciously shift their focus back to the substance of the work. We must remember that the real value lies in the music—the human message—not the platform that delivers it.
References
- Bonini, T., & Gandini, A. (2019). First Week Is Editorial, Second Week Is Algorithmic: Platform Personalization and the Surfacing of New Music. Television & New Media.
- Morris, J. W. (2015). Selling Digital Music, Formatting Culture. University of California Press.
- Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production. New Media & Society.
- Prey, R. (2018). Nothing personal: Algorithmic individuation on music streaming platforms. Media, Culture & Society.
