Short-form-ification of debate
Why does it feel like you're seeing the same phrases over and over again when reading the comments under a video, or a Twitter thread, or anything else online these days?
Online debate and discourse has become memefied, and at the core of every common discussion you see the same throwaway lines being used.
Take any kind of environmental debate and you'll hear: "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism", and "the planet is dying anyways". Catchphrases consisting of a double-shot of anticapitalism with a fatalistic mixer, a dash of dread, and a lime wedge. You've probably heard one of these lines before; they're so commonly used as a retort to criticisms of individual choices of any kind, whether that is eating meat, taking regular flights, or buying fast fashion [link to previous article].
The attitude these phrases represent sit neatly alongside the extreme pessimism of 'doomerism' as it relates to climate change and late-stage capitalism. These have become slogans that encourage the otherwise usually young, leftist onlookers to consume guilt-free.
As propaganda, slogans like this work extremely well. We're shifting away from thinking we are buying for fear of missing out or (in clothing and beauty) fear that there's something wrong with your appearance. What's replaced it is a notion that it's self care to get yourself that thing, or that somehow, you're enjoying your life despite anticipating disaster. The best part for industries this affects is that they've hardly had to lift a finger to shift attitudes in this way.
When you have under a minute to show off your outfit, get an idea across or make a joke, your audience don't have long to form an opinion on you. You want to be likable, relatable, and when there's the chance of morals coming into question, your audience is trying to decide if you're good or bad. What's so effective about these slogans as propaganda is that they comfort both the person saying them and the reader, they are hard to disagree with without exerting effort in trying to change someone's mind, and they are so short and repeatable. The audience doesn't have much time to make up their mind: the media that reinforces habits you already have and encourages you not to challenge them often prevail.
Propaganda as storytelling
Making your point as quickly and effectively as possible was particularly important during the worst of the coronavirus pandemic. The social media twist on government slogans like the UK's "Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives" quickly became "wear a fucking mask".
We also saw, unlike ordinary media or news, a story being played out: for instance, a video of 'Karen' being denied entry to a store that requires a mask. This is satisfying in that we have this social media created archetype, Karen, and a frontline worker: most of the audience understand the 'good' and 'bad' guy in this story very quickly. This adds a layer to propaganda pushed by a government or otherwise politically: we know we could be filmed for the world to see if you're deemed the villain in a story like this.
To take a current example of this (an aside, I started writing this in 2023 and it is now 2025), the 'Manosphere' social media misogynists use these same techniques to make women seem unreasonable, aggressive or emotional for rejecting men's advances, for instance. We can often tell this is all staged, but the often-vulnerable audience generally does not.
I am trying to illustrate that short-form media such as small videos are all about creating a narrative, and it's a reason it's so compelling to watch these over and over and over again. I would like to draw attention to how short-form media behaves as propaganda and forces us to view those affected by important issues as characters or archetypes. The real people in this media form become the equivalent to caricatures in a political cartoon in a newspaper: we start to categorise them in a similar way. Differences we see in art and media designed for short-form is not just a shift in how we view other people. For the creators, it's also a focus on creating work to be relatable, and simple enough that it cannot be misinterpreted.
Art in short-form
An artist (or creator) using social media as their primary means for sharing their work deals with the need to brand themselves to get noticed in a competitive field; this goes both for hobbyists and professionals. It becomes not just about your work, but about who you are as a person. Again, this ties into the relatability aspect that you cannot get away from. Something we've come to value in the short-form era is this idea of authenticity and individuality, because I think we are sick of feeling marketed to. But for the creators who need to establish who they are, it is about whittling yourself into a recognisable character.
The audience doesn’t want to speculate about why you made a particular work, they want to be told that a work is from the perspective of [insert background here] – it is that which makes them connect with the artist. This creates the change between art currently and historically: there is higher demand for talent being showcased from previously underrepresented backgrounds. This is great for some artists, but I am concerned that some feel under pressure to make pain and trauma something they need to broadcast publicly. Make yourself digestible but marketable, because not only are you sharing your art, but also yourself. And feel free to create art about your traumas, as long as it can be digested in under a few seconds.
This is probably why instapoetry (like Atticus or Rupi Kaur) is so successful; it’s impossible to misunderstand and resonates with most people. It feels emotionally deep, perhaps, but doesn't challenge anyone.
Relatability and shareability can impact the depth and quality of new art, too. Something is lost here. The worst thing that could happen is that the audience misinterprets your work, especially if it was satirical and you are labeled with the views you intended to parody! Leaving no room for misinterpretation kills the metaphor, kills the symbolism, kills the sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek humour. This is probably why many visual artists have turned to infographics and, to bring it full-circle, propaganda posters of cartoons with messaging that you will find impossible to disagree with.
Messaging of... don't be a racist/homophobic/sexist dick. Love not bombs. Et cetera. What really is at risk here?
Is it actually art or propaganda if truly nothing is at risk?