Replication with some source of variation (such as even just “people aren't perfect mimics”, but “some people apply some minor modicum of creativity” enhances this) plus selective pressure (such as interesting novelty getting rewarded) is sufficient for it to function as as Darwinian creativity amplification system by way of being principally a mimic network.
TikTok being a "mimic network" does not show it's not creative.
Creativity is primarily a product of creation, rather than one of originality and TikTok is, in fact, inspiring to create.
Something can be authored that was unintentionally interesting, but amplified by the creative recognition of some weird facet. For example cat videos - the cat isn’t trying to get likes! Edit: or a security camera video where there is zero intent to create, and the art is in the recognition of the clip by everybody.
edit: to the repeat downvoters instantly hitting every one of my comments, those that don't like the fact that I'm pointing out that humans are 99%+ mimics, I'd encourage you to add to the discussion and dissent from what I'm saying. I'd enjoy reading that counter. Everyone isn't a butterfly just waiting to be unleashed into the next da Vinci, that's a fantasy. It makes perfect sense that the majority operate as distributors, mimics, for things that the 0.001% come up with that work effectively. It would be an enormous biological waste of energy for everyone to be so creative, the mimic and distribute what works approach is logical. Humans do it with everything, including learning / copying skills, behaviors, systems, almost anything you can name. For example, there are always a very small number of teachers (as a share of the population) distributing knowledge/skills, and most teachers are also mimics, but they're custodian mimics that use various bullhorns to (ideally) spread what works faster. Teachers are rarely originators, the knowledge is passed down a distribution chain by mimics that serve various functions along the way. That's how a lot of systems in human societies work (politics and religion all work that way).
I don't view the premise as bad at all, or negative. It makes sense, it's a very reasonable biological system of replicating/copying what works and passing it along; it's very energy efficient for a species, and historically we've had to conserve energy, our evolution would strongly favor a mimic what works system. As a concept it also doesn't elevate us above other biological systems that operate on this planet, we're not that special; whereas to pretend that everyone can be da Vinci is to falsify what humans are, to pretend every person is a creativity giant in waiting if only they got the right encouragement. It's just more of everyone gets a trophy culture in action.
I think it helps to compare "copy and remix" with "does nothing". Compare "watched 50 difference dances" with "saw 0 dances". When you see it in that light, it would be difficult to argue that some people don't get inspired by seeing new things.
Now, I might argue that the level of creativity added from each additional user is not linear. That the creativity added is vacuous, pointless, 99% mimicry, and doesn't actually move the conversation forward...
But there are those 1% of users who are able to participate in the global conversation and say something new, who otherwise would not be able to participate, that I think it's at least worth acknolwedging.
Even someone as great as Picasso would not have been able to create the masterwork he left us without learning and getting inspirations (aka, steal) from other artists before his time.
If you ever think someone is creating good original art (because shitty original art is easy to create), chances are you are just not familiar with the work they stole from.
I think the book Steal Like an Artist addresses this.
TikTok acts likes this and the remix is like a blending/combining prior creativity that leads to continuous new creativity.
Or fantastic and courageous minds responding to some cultural or historical material?
(Which would be much in the way a TikToker responds to a meme while adding some of their own spice).
Let’s not get bogged down by the fact that one domain might be perceived as more valuable/respected and the other not so.
What have philosophers ever done post-Socrates except come across the ecosystem of historical philosophers and riff off of that?
Think about any modern scientist. Has their creativity been boosted by the existence of all the other scientists?
If I’m a physicist, the existence of Newton boosted my creativity because now I can apply calculus to problems. If I’m a biologist, Im leaning on Darwin and all the insights of statisticians and the people who have delineated the methods and findings around which I organize my science.
People have previously innovated the concepts, methods, and foundational understandings, and finding new insight can be a matter of combining these in novel ways.
I don’t think this is completely different than what the author is describing in TikTok. Both the format and ecosystem of tools that the service creates, and the social network of users create an environment where it’s easier to go out and make something.
A similar thing happens in science.
1. Have you heard of the belief of "Human Design"? That belief / theory / spiritual guide has a similar distribution to what you're talking about. I'm just curious if your thinking was independent to that or if you've ever heard of it. (https://www.jovianarchive.com/Human_Design/Types)
2. How do you define originality? Is it something where "you know it when you see it", or is it something else?
3. Thinking of probabilities, wouldn't it also make sense that the default for people is to be un-original? We only have so many elements and so many places, I have to imagine that people being 'incapable of [doing anything creative or original]' is less a value statement and more just a logical progression of probability.
4. I've also come to a feeling that a person doing something that they've seen before, but do not see right at that very minute, is 'non-internet brain thinking'. We didn't have visual records so prevalent until just recently in humanity's lifetime. Repetition of behavior (lately sometimes called 'holding space for X') is a useful function for social networks, giving validity to someone's creativity.
Again, not trying to invalidate anything you're saying (and I noted your 'cue the outrage' comment, hence why I'm over specifying this too)
Super interesting take on the article, I've been wondering similar things for a while.
But TiKTok has only just launched that avatar. TiKTok has created another one. They are still creating the first and are hoping to add another.
And as a result, TikTok has become this strange thing called "the Internet's Most Dangerous Video." For some reason, even people who are a little skeptical have found the world and become so accustomed to the idea of TikTok and their little thing that they can't imagine how this project can kill their brains for some of the crazy shit they're actually watching on it.
Of course people are going to be outraged over the statement. You're playing a semantic game where you came up with your own definition of creativity that excludes what most people do, and then not actually defining it or justifying it. If you used a more common definition of creative you'd have no argument to make.
Novelty isn't the only thing that makes something creative, a string of randomly generated numbers is always novel but wouldn't be considered creative. Creativity requires novelty conveyed through recognizable patterns, which means some amount of mimicry has to be involved.
I think the word “prolific” applies to what TikTok facilitates, much more than the word “creative.” And personally I find the amount of word for word and beat for beat mimicry on the app maddening.
Citing dictionary definitions just shifts your argument from one word whose meaning you didn't define to another word whose meaning you haven't defined. Is the Mona Lisa original? It's not the first oil painting, nor the first portrait, nor even the first painting of an Italian noblewoman made in the renaissance style. Yet it's commonly considered to be creative despite being imitative and unoriginal in all those previously mentioned aspects. What definition of original can you then make that simultaneously includes the Mona Lisa, is mutually exclusive with any imitation, and excludes the "majority of humans".
Most of social media is just shallow attention grabbing time sinks. IOW, attention hacks.
> By network effects of creativity, I mean that every additional user on TikTok makes every other user more creative.
That is false.
TikTok isn't a creativity amplification network, it's a mimic network. The extreme majority of humans are mimics, they essentially never create or do anything creative or original. They are incapable of that (cue the outrage at such a statement, even though it's true). They play follow the leader across a lifetime. TikTok, like most social networks, represents that accurately. What TikTok does not represent, is a burst of individual creativity that is widespread.
It's a creativity distribution channel. The 0.01% that are originators distribute creativity to the drone mimics and they copy and share it.
That's exactly what the dance copying represents for example. There is no great creativity explosion going on there, quite the opposite. As with YouTube or any other distribution system, an exceptionally tiny percentage of people are originators, actually creative, the rest mimic and pander and try to scam their way to some views by copying or ripping off originators (you see this repeating trend represented in everything, eg content farms).