Recently, YouTube removed a piece of content I created because it was deemed inappropriate. This is not the first time YouTube has found my content inappropriate. Cyberpunk Utopia had to be classified as 18+ for an episode. I find it frustrating. It doesn't see 'Cardi B—WUP' as inappropriate for some reason. It's four minutes of definite 18+ material, yet it's watchable now with no restrictions. What's going on?
It's one thing to be seductive and coy. Prince was a master in his class when it came to this. It was done with taste but not for shear shock value. I've talked about this before—this concept of pushing things too far, of creating substance over how insane and stupid we can be. It's one thing to show feminism. To be bold and have confidence in your body. Which is fantastic. But it's another thing to go off the deep end. You may as well just become a porn star, and you can create all the funky movies you want. But that's not art to me. Well, at least it's not the art I want to make.
Anyone can make things disgusting. However, not many can present work that hints at and creates parcels of interpretation. For example, in the movie Saltburn, the relationship the director 'Emerald Fennell' creates between Felix and Oliver is one of magic. Do they have a bromance, or is it something deeper? Is Oliver just playing games with everyone, or is he falling in love? The scenes depicted may disturb some, but it's done with such a class. We don't understand this royalty world. The high-class English world. Perhaps this is normal. That's the kicker.
This is the concept that 'Prince' was so good at. Does he dress like that? Does he think that way? What's with the stilettos? Was he homosexual or bi? 'Am I black or white?". But do you see where I'm going with this? It's the suspense—the intrigue. It's all just fantastic.
Now we've got all these large platforms, which have their agendas, ideas and vision. That's fine—they will. But you need to be fair in the content you find inappropriate. I mention this because we're in a world of Spotify, YouTube, and Instagram (and TikTok). As artists, we're in their world. Policing content is subjective. But it seems very one-sided.
Before the rise of the internet, as artists, we were subjected to shady managers and record labels stealing millions from artists. Now, we're in a situation where we have greater power to connect with our listeners directly but are limited by how we can present our art. Just as long as you don't challenge the status quo. You'll be fine if you create 'Taylor Swift' vibes. But once you step into creating and challenging the space around you, then that's a different story.
You see, it's all about creating a false reality—the one where you feel you have freedom. But when you realise that any content you upload isn't yours but rather YouTube, this starts to change. You are, after all, using their platforms. Apple Music and Spotify approve your artwork. If they don't like it or it's controversial, then you can't share it.
When you sign to a large label, I guess the 'Inappropriate' margin is a bit blurry and unregulated. Or perhaps it's because it aligns with the larger vision of what these platforms want to share with you. Whatever the case, it's subjective. Maybe they like 'Carbi B,' and it's as simple as that.
But it brings me to my final thought. Can artists now create the art we genuinely want to share, or are we being pushed to create content deemed subtle for the audience, their audience? Subjected to what employees at these large companies deem fit is inappropriate. But judging by how many people see Taylor Swift as an artist and a person creating art, what percentage of those are employees of content platforms?
Where is the line drawn?
Much Love,
Val
Comments