The ratio of creators vs consumers per platform remains constant. Let’s say as an optimistic scenario 1/100 users are creators.

The first articles on Medium would have gotten huge organic exposure, the first featured videos on Vimeo the same. The first movers are richly rewarded before the horde gets in on the platform.

Although there is only so much “window space” for creators as in first 50 results on Google. Things were awesome for the first 50 business’s, they were featured no matter what. Therefore even less competitive business’s could get organic lands.

Tesla is first to the mass EV market in the West, which means for a while they are arbitraging anyone that wants a real EV. They don’t really need to compete. As market share is eroded they will as a technology company move into the next thing it could be robotics for example.

Extend this notion to any discovery platform like Instagram or Twitter, you will eventually come across the same conclusion. First, reserve the best usernames. The consistency allows them to build an audience quickly.

Same occurs for tools in the hands of creators, this is especially apparent for design tools like C4D, at the beginning when there is a shortage of knowledge and at the saturation phase everything looks the same, then the decay phase when the tool is superseded. Artists and designers have moved onto the next phase of complexity such as Houdini or Touch Designer. Then in the post AI worlds it’s probably It’s evident that VFX pushes this further when artists become defined by their tools, one after effects animation isn’t a world different from the next and we’re always going to be moving in a direction not dissimilar to

It happens again and again with any tool, it’s like oil paint has a specific cadence in history and a very specific look. Caravaggio’s baroque era has a very specific look due to both the paint and new lighting methods.

The market value of domain knowledge relating to a tool is in an inverse correlation to the bell curve distribution of people utilizing the said tool to create things. Applicable to the skills market too, a great example is smart contracts the advent of smart contracts had users nut out.

The value adoption curve is kind of an infinite helix, because things that are new eventually become old, very piece of content needs momentum to exist.

It’s why demand for COBOL as a skill still exists.

To explain the phenomenon to the left of the curve, it’s why the lead pencil are is still valued, they are on the far left primitive area of the spectrum that requires a large commitment of craftsmanship and time that can’t be easily replicated, on the far right you have technology like AfterEffects, C4D, Houdini, Octane and then custom renderers and other new media ai art on the other spectrum. Now with diffusion, it’s comfyUI On the far right you have new media art which includes but is not limited to “AI”.

When the technology itself determines design patterns you get a groundswell of works that are very similar in vein, look at particular applications like After Effects and the design language that it encapsulates. Artists who use After Effects have a certain.

The middle of the curve houses the most content, it’s content which is somewhat safe. The type of content that is easily replicated, it has no visual “identity or design schema per se, it’s neither good or bad. It just exists in the middle grounds of the content spectrum. When things exist in the middle ground of the content spectrum it’s most like to be drowned out, which is why bad art is better than mediocre art because it inspires a reaction.

Attached works of an artist I like gringler who makes heavily processed industrial art, it has an style or orientation but it’s not exactly aesthetically pleasing.

Even though the artist is unknown to all the world, I would classify this artist in the realm of successful as they have clearly found their own nice.

Or any reaction is better than a reaction.