
Illustration by Justine Guzman
I recently had someone tell me that she loves Taylor Swift now, but “hated her when it was cool to hate her.” Even now, after 14 years of being a fan, this bothers me. Swift is much more than good music and entertainment — she is a voice, a bit of warmth, someone who understands our feelings which we cannot put into words. Many of us who grew up with her experienced middle school, high school, and college with her discography as a soundtrack for our own lives, and her specific yet accessible lyrics make it astonishingly easy to do this.
Simply trying to write a somewhat objective piece about Swift is a struggle for me because she has created such a rich bond with her fanbase that it is so easy to feel loyal and even indebted to her. As a fellow songwriter, she has always been an inspiration to me, with that humble country background beginning in a little café in Nashville making her success seem almost within reach. Not just for aspiring artists, though; she has always had a way of breaching the gap between herself and her followers, from crowdsurfing and squeezing fans’ hands in her first tour, to sharing inside jokes on social media and contributing to fans’ GoFundMe fundraisers. However, her innocent disposition and vulnerable writing style have been used as weapons against her by casual listeners and fellow artists alike.
From Kanye interrupting her 2009 VMA award acceptance speech to Katy Perry allegedly stealing her tour dancers in 2012 to Scooter Braun buying her former record label in 2019 — Swift’s rampant success has ensnared her into some of the biggest front-page stories in popular media over the last fifteen years, leading her to ruthless public scrutiny.
The worst of the condemnation began after her fourth studio album, “Red,” hit shelves in 2012 and it seemed that Swift went from being America’s sweetheart to being perceived as a serial dater with an obnoxious victim complex. She was shamed by fans and fellow stars alike for referencing celebrities she had publicly dated in her songs, sometimes by name. While she had to have known it would make her a target, it also created a devoted fanbase who appreciated the way she kept her heart on her sleeve throughout years of growing fame. She was never hesitant to call someone else out, not even herself.
Take “Back to December,” the second single from “Speak Now” (2010) — this was released shortly after Swift’s public yet brief relationship with “Twilight’s” Taylor Lautner (as a couple they were “Taylor squared”) and in it she confesses her regret in taking him for granted (“it turns out freedom ain’t nothing but missing you / wishing I’d realized what I had when you were mine”), admitting her own missteps and apologizing to the subject of the song. On that same album, she wrote “Dear John,” widely known to be about singer John Mayer, who she mercilessly accuses of breaking her heart (“Don’t you think nineteen’s too young to be played by / your dark twisted games / when I loved you so? I should’ve known”).
When “Red” was released, Swift was 23, and although she still existed in the country genre, presenting herself as a cherry-lipped, soft-spoken young woman, she began to be criticized for writing too much about her relationships and being “immature.” Once the criticism began spreading, there was no stopping it (think COVID in Florida during spring break). Hating her became a trend — lifelong fans such as myself can attest to the struggle of being a supporter during these dark years. One fan warned others on Twitter to watch what they say online in the name of defending Swift, because “[reporters] are going to be shaping the narrative around our behavior.” The loyalty among fans is so fierce, many fans will go to extreme lengths to protect Swift’s name. My best friend in the 9th grade was a Directioner (One Direction’s fandom) and let me tell you, that was the equivalent of Trump vs. Biden supporters in 2020 for high schoolers in 2013. I’m not proud of the amount of times she had me in tears by trash-talking Taylor Swift.
The biggest and most innovative forms of connection with her fans began in 2014 with her album “1989.” She started doing what she called “secret sessions,” where she would invite a group of fans to her homes in different cities across the U.S. and in the U.K. to spend time with her and listen to her albums before they were released.
I remember being beyond envious of these fans — most of them Swift’s team found on Twitter, Tumblr, or some other social media platform where they expressed their love for the star. In these photos, Swift is hugging them, letting them hold her Grammy awards, and snuggling up on her couch. She bakes cookies and laughs with them, singing along to her songs while everyone sits cross-legged on the living room floor. Many gave testaments to how she acted when they met her. One young woman with cerebral palsy wrote in a tweet that Swift’s team rented a private van to get her to Taylor’s house to meet her when she had no other means of transportation. “She was very normal and witty,” she explained. “That’s what I loved about her. Also her whole team could not have been nicer to me.”
Yet, only a couple of years later, this private image of Swift was a startling contrast to that of the media spotlight in the summer of 2016 when Kanye dropped “Famous,” which include the lyrics “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / Why? I made that bitch famous.” Worse, the music video, which premiered three months later, included a wax figure of a naked Taylor Swift, lying in bed next to Kanye.
When Swift went public to say she never approved of the lyric calling her a “bitch,” Kim Kardashian, Kanye’s wife, took to Snapchat where she posted videos of a recorded conversation between Kanye and Swift, alleging that this was the phone call where he asked for her permission to use her name in the song. Swift does give her blessing for the name drop only, but her agreeing to the specifics is not included in the recording. Kardashian then tweeted a row of snake emojis, which quickly blew up.
Within minutes, the entire Internet was calling Taylor Swift a snake. Not long after, she went completely black on social media.
Many took Swift’s silence to mean she was accepting defeat. In reality, she was quietly, carefully, biding her time and creating an album that would flip the snake image onto its head and put herself in power once again.
The release of “Reputation” in 2017 allowed Swift to somewhat regain the delicately calibrated image of herself, while also allowing her to reshape her future as an artist. After a three-year hiatus during which her social media activity had diminished little by little (until the Kim and Kanye feud, when it completely stopped), “Reputation” was a fresh start. As snakes shed their skin, Swift was shedding hers. Her first-ever black and white album cover became one of many precise details the singer used to convey a more callous, sharper version of herself. Cue the iconic line: “Sorry, the old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now. Why? Oh, cause she’s dead.”
This album and tour coined a newborn artist, someone who is unapologetic, deliberate, and playfully vengeful. She got called a snake in the media, so she had a giant moving snake on tour. She sold snake rings for $60 a pop. Her music video for “Look What You Made Me Do”, which features snakes from beginning to end, has gained 1.2 billion views on YouTube (Kanye’s “Famous” has 47 million views, by comparison). You can call her a snake, sure, but you can’t say she isn’t clever.
In the summer of 2019, Swift regained some control of her narrative, coming out with a very impassioned statement on Tumblr about how Scott Borchetta, the founder of her former long-time record label Big Machine Label Group, had sold the company to Ithaca Holdings. The chairman of Ithaca, Scooter Braun, is an apparent nemesis of Swift — in her first post about the situation, she referred to his behavior towards her as “incessant, manipulative bullying.” She writes that this was all done without her knowledge or permission; she was never given the opportunity to buy the rights to her first six albums, and therefore they now belonged to Scooter Braun. Soon after, Big Machine released a statement directly countering her argument, saying “Taylor, the narrative you have created does not exist.”
In response, Swift has just simply chosen to rewrite her narrative and her legacy — again. As she prepares to release her new version of “Fearless” (to be released on April 9), she will likely prove that she can and she will create whatever narrative concerning her career that she wants.
In February of this year, Swift released her new version of “Love Story,” the iconic (no thanks credited to the viral TikTok remix) single that had, once upon a time, recruited many of her early fans back in 2008. This version is almost indistinguishable from the old, but true fans will recognize the maturity in her voice; they’ll notice the way her voice swings when she says, “Romeo take me,” how she’s choppier and more controlled in the first “oh, oh.” The differences are small enough to maintain the integrity of the original song that fans loved so much, but big enough to make the rerelease of this album just as exciting as if she were putting out a brand new one. This is the first step to her rerecording every album she once created that now puts money into Scooter Braun’s pocket.
On the first day of its release, the song garnered 5.8 million streams, and it’s already outselling the original version. With a new, sepia-toned album cover reminiscent of the original (the classic long blonde hair toss and silky white dress remain) and six unreleased songs that didn’t make the cut when she produced the track list with Big Machine, this project is already on track to do what Swift does best — twist the negative publicity and the drama into her own victory, splattered with that one-of-a-kind sweetheart, calculated, pop-sensation bad bitch energy that only Taylor Swift can provide.
The timing of “Fearless” is especially notable given Swift’s recent departure from her old style.
Last year, Swift did something that surprised even her most avid fans — she dropped not one but two albums within a five-month period, both within 24 hours of their original announcement. And not only was the promotion of these albums, “Folklore” and “Evermore,” radically different from her previous methods, so was the sound.
Before, she had experimented with country, pop, hip-hop, and rock, creating current pop blends that were sure to gain critical acclaim. These new albums are alternative, folksy, indie.
“Folklore” and “Evermore” are eloquently written, gentle in sound; even accusatory lyrics seem hard to attack because they’re presented in your ear so peacefully. In “mad woman,” she sings, “and women like hunting witches too / doin’ your dirtiest work for you / it’s obvious that wanting me dead has really brought you two together,” which is very likely about Kim and Kanye. In “it’s time to go,” she sings, “now he sits on his throne in his palace of bones / praying to his greed / he’s got my past frozen behind glass / but I’ve got me.” This is assumed to be about Scooter Braun and/or Scott Borchetta.
I used to listen to “Reputation” while I did my best friend’s makeup before a night out, or “Lover” in my car on the way to the dog park with the windows rolled down. I now listen to “Folklore” and “Evermore” in the bath with a glass of wine, or at a low volume while I’m falling asleep. #TaylorSwiftIsLovedParty is trending on Twitter as I write this. The page is filled with photos of Swift performing with arms wide open in the rain, squatting down to the eye levels of children, sitting on the floor in a gown with too many awards in her lap to hold. The amount of adoration in the tweets is impossible to ignore.
What compels these people to feel this way?
What compelled me to blast “1989” from the speakers of my Honda CR-V at 7:30 a.m. in the parking lot of my high school on the morning of its debut? What compels me, now, to write this, to fervently defend her despite the fact that I’ve never met her, that she has no idea who I am?
Yes, I do believe Taylor Swift can rewrite her narrative — I think we’ve seen her do it a hundred times before. Even more than that, though, I see it because of her part in my own narrative — her words that I cry to, her words that I feel the urge to sing when I’m making dinner and dancing in my slippers, her words that bring me back to my first love as if it’s 2013 and I’m watching the nervous red-headed boy smile at me from across the room. Taylor Swift will likely continue to form and reform her sound and public appearance, from pop to folk, from despised to adored for the rest of her career, and there will inevitably come a time she removes herself from the spotlight and slowly dwindles from mainstream consciousness.
But no matter what, her fans, me included, will never let her legacy fall. We have grown up alongside her, watching her consistently “come back stronger than a ’90s trend,” embracing her artistic desires and instincts every step of the way. It’s the fans that she always credits, as we credit her for much of our growth, as I listen to her music while I write this so I can remember while telling her story how much she has done for me and will likely continue to do. That’s the biggest love story Swift has to tell.
Read More →
The Gen Z Directory for Cryptoart
By Monica Gong April 15, 2021 Arts & Culture, Featured
Illustration by Jade Sheng.
Generation Z is synonymous with the internet.
We are branded as internet natives, yet late capitalism’s technological innovations leave even us scratching our heads in confusion. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have kept a relatively low profile in cyberspace, whispered amongst niche tech circles and obscured by an impenetrable veil of mysticism. This has changed with the rise of cryptoart. New media discourse is being pushed into public consciousness, but the rhetoric surrounding this phenomenon can be perplexing. Blockchain? NFT? WTF is that? Where did it come from? And why should I care?
Cryptoart 101
New Media is an ever-changing terminology loosely definable as art that is conceived, stored, and spread via digital means. Cryptoart lives within this realm. Everest Pipkin, gaming and software artist, simplifies this subcategory in their viral Medium post:
“Cryptoart is a piece of metadata (including an image or link to an image/file, the creator of that file, datestamps, associated contracts or text, and the purchaser of the piece) which is attached to a ‘token’ (which has monetary value in a marketplace) and stored in a blockchain. An individual piece of cryptoart is called an NFT.”
NFT stands for non-fungible token. “Non-fungible” means that it cannot be traded equally with another item, therefore verifying its uniqueness and creating a system of digital scarcity. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are fungible: One bitcoin can be traded with another, and both are rendered equivalent. Cryptoart’s monetary value lies in Ethereum, or ETH, a currency that fluctuates like all other currencies. Anyone can “mint” any digital image and sell it on the blockchain.
Digital scarcity must be emphasized, for it is this which displays the value of cryptoart. While cryptoart preserves the digital image’s ability to be downloaded and shared across social media, it attempts to reconcile the question of ownership in cyberspace. Platforms such as SuperRare position the “true owner” of a digital artwork as whoever owns its NFT in the blockchain, thus presenting new media with a type of ownership that is socially construed and legitimized with money.
Is Cryptoart Good or Bad?
It’s not that simple.
Cryptoart yearns to de-mediate the relationship between artist and consumer in the contemporary age. Digital art is notoriously difficult to sell, and cryptoart could be subversive in helping small artists earn a sustainable income. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that cryptoart comes with a wide range of discourse surrounding its social and ecological ramifications.
Loudest in the cultural criticism of cryptoart is the fear of depreciated value. Pipkin believes that digital media “can proliferate over a network and be held by many people at once without cheapening or breaking the aura of a first-hand experience,” and that the digital scarcity created by cryptoart destroys this open-source network.
Rosa Menkman, glitch artist and author of “Glitch Studies Manifesto” echoes this sentiment in her article “Remarks on Crypto-Art,” which responds to unregulated instances of her stolen artwork. Menkman criticizes the non-consensual minting of her artwork (all of which is free to view on the web) and the possible changes in its cultural value.
By now it is undeniable that cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin and Ethereum, uses an incredible amount of energy and is actively contributing to the climate crisis. Menkman laments the effect of her stolen artwork on the climate, all without her direct participation in the crypto world. In “The Unreasonable Ecological Cost of #CryptoArt,” computational artist Memo Akten calculated that the average carbon footprint for an NFT “is equivalent to a E.U. resident’s total electric power consumption for more than a month, with emissions equivalent to driving for 1000Km, or flying for 2 hours.” Most poignant in the ecological criticism of cryptoart is the fact that climate change will affect poor communities of color worst of all.
This problem is exasperated by the nauseating price tags on cryptoart platforms, including Azealia Banks and Ryder Ripp’s $17,000 audio sex tape and Beeple’s $69 million digital mosaic, which is the most expensive digital artwork sold to date as well as the third most expensive artwork ever sold by a living artist. The mosaic is comprised of 5,000 images that Beeple has published on the internet daily since May 1, 2007. A closer look from Ben Davis of Art News exposes the repulsive imagery included in the work.
While the carbon footprint of a working crypto artist could be justifiable, especially with the more eco-friendly platforms such as KodaDot or Kalamint, the previous examples generate egregious amounts of unnecessary waste in exchange for blue-chip greed. Many artists have responded to the ecological ramifications of the cryptoart market. Some insist that the only ethical response is complete abstinence from cryptoart platforms and urge for new solutions for supporting digital artists — although nothing substantial has been proposed. Small cryptoartists struggle with the responsibility that comes with their practice, and are looking for ways to rectify their damage.
This typically takes the form of carbon offsets, which raise a separate crop of issues. Not only is it difficult to gauge how effective they are, but reforestation efforts can be harmful to local populations. PRI’s The World reported that Disney’s carbon offset efforts in Peru created “conflict between local people” which “eventually erupted into violence.”
The Gen Z Circumstance
The convergence of cyberspace and climate change are a situation specific to Generation Z. As a result, possible solutions to this problem fall on our shoulders, whether we want them to or not. I spoke with fellow Gen Z artists and art students at SAIC, to hear what they think.
On selling cryptoart
I think a lot of young/student artists, and myself as well, are waiting for this big wave to calm down. We’re trying to gather more information for something that seems like it will hugely impact our careers. I’m just trying to learn how to move myself into this NFT world — which is here to stay. I won’t be involved with NFT until I find more convincing convictions of its ethics.
— Sarah Kim (BFA 2022)
I will continue to participate and I’m aware of the negative ramifications. I believe that anybody has the right to choose whether to participate or not and I respect their choice and opinion. I don’t think that anybody can get rid of it or stop it, though. It’s part of something much larger and has been in motion for a few years. Many people say ETH 2.0 could fix many of the ecological issues, but who knows when that’s coming out. There’s also some eco-friendly NFT platforms with their own currency that I’ve seen, but unfortunately, they’re nowhere near as popular.
— Thomas Stokes III, Painter and Digital NFT Artist
On the ecological ramifications of cryptoart
Yeah, fuck that. Those stats are scary as fuck. Weren’t we supposed to go forward in reducing our carbon footprint? We just threw everything out the window for some hype. My echo chamber of social media show digital artists not in support of NFTs, and this is predominately where I get my information about NFTs. Maybe I am pessimistic about NFTs because of this echo chamber bias, but I’m open-minded about getting more information to try to participate ethically.
— Sarah Kim
I do feel responsible to an extent. One thing that I think about is how much I would have to donate to cover the damage, and how much that would cut into my profit because of how much damage it is. But I need to do research. I would really like to switch to a more eco-friendly platform. The problem is that they’re so small and don’t get much traffic at all compared to other platforms, from what I’ve seen. If they were as popular and had the same collectors as SuperRare then I definitely would switch over.
— Thomas Stokes III
On the changing conceptions of ownership and value in cryptoart
I love the fact the internet is open-sourced and created to share, consume, remix, etc. I embrace this part of the digital world. We wouldn’t have inventive ideas if it weren’t for the sharing — maybe over-pollution — of human creation or ideas. Digital ownership has always been a problem seen on social media, which is why this (MIS)conception of “digital ownership” is oh-so-falsely attractive. Also, this neoliberalist blockchain playground is falsely supportive of disadvantaged artists — it’s just the art world now mixed with the hype of digital coin.
— Sarah Kim
It must be emphasized that cryptoart is a branch of the meme economy that parallels the patronage model of fine art. Wealthy art patrons mutually bolster their social standing of having “refined tastes” while financially sustaining the artist. At its core, memes generate their power through cultural know-how, whether you are in on the joke or not, while cryptoart derives its value from (monetary) provenance. The landscape of the net wrangles intellectual property and cultural dominance, akin to Richard Dawkins’ conception of memes and cultural evolution. If both are to co-exist, we should not have memes devalued and debased as has occurred in the art world with exclusive galleries and exhibitions which define “good” art.
— Steven Hou (BFAW 2023)
*
A common sentiment amongst Generation Z is about the obscurity of cryptoart. This is understandable, considering its newness. Recent exposure to cryptoart might be limited to its sensationalization by big media outlets or social media posts. This piece aims to provide insight into the world of cryptoart through New Media academics and artists, although the only extensive considerations I could find surrounding this phenomenon have been raised by white professionals. Perhaps this is why the explicit mention of race is largely absent from this official discourse, though many on social media have expressed distaste for cryptoart’s overwhelming rich-white-male-centricity which only mimics the existing art market.
Gen Z will experience the ecological and social effects of cryptoart. Because of this, it is imperative that we analyze and discuss its potential consequences. Hopefully, this piece can act as a starting point.
Read More →