core / papers / arxiv-complex / complex.tex

% !TEX program = xelatex
\documentclass[10pt,letterpaper,twocolumn]{article}

\usepackage[top=0.75in, bottom=0.75in, left=0.75in, right=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage{unicode-math}
\setmainfont{Latin Modern Roman}
\setsansfont{Latin Modern Sans}
\newfontfamily\acbold{ywft-processing-bold}[Path=../../system/public/type/webfonts/,Extension=.ttf]
\newfontfamily\aclight{ywft-processing-light}[Path=../../system/public/type/webfonts/,Extension=.ttf]
\setmonofont{Latin Modern Mono}[Scale=0.85]

\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\graphicspath{{figures/}{../../papers/arxiv-ac/figures/}}
\usepackage{ragged2e}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage[colorspec=0.92]{draftwatermark}

\definecolor{acpink}{RGB}{180,72,135}
\definecolor{acpurple}{RGB}{120,80,180}
\definecolor{acdark}{RGB}{64,56,74}
\definecolor{acgray}{RGB}{119,119,119}
\definecolor{draftcolor}{RGB}{180,72,135}

\DraftwatermarkOptions{text=WORKING DRAFT,fontsize=3cm,color=draftcolor!18,angle=45}

\hypersetup{colorlinks=true,linkcolor=acpurple,urlcolor=acpurple,citecolor=acpurple,
  pdftitle={Sucking on the Complex: Platform Hegemony, Critique-as-Content, and the Need for Anti-Environments}}

\titleformat{\section}{\normalfont\bfseries\normalsize\uppercase}{\thesection.}{0.5em}{}
\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{1.2em}{0.3em}
\titleformat{\subsection}{\normalfont\bfseries\small}{\thesubsection}{0.5em}{}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{0.8em}{0.2em}

\pagestyle{fancy}\fancyhf{}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyhead[C]{\footnotesize\color{acpink}\textit{Working Draft --- not for citation}}
\fancyfoot[C]{\footnotesize\thepage}

\newcommand{\ac}{\textsc{Aesthetic.Computer}}
% Random caps for Aesthetic.Computer branding
\newcount\acrandtmp
\newcommand{\acrandletter}[2]{%
  \acrandtmp=\uniformdeviate 2\relax
  \ifnum\acrandtmp=0\relax#1\else#2\fi%
}
\newcommand{\acrandname}{%
  \acrandletter{a}{A}\acrandletter{e}{E}\acrandletter{s}{S}\acrandletter{t}{T}%
  \acrandletter{h}{H}\acrandletter{e}{E}\acrandletter{t}{T}\acrandletter{i}{I}%
  \acrandletter{c}{C}{\color{acpink}.}\acrandletter{c}{C}\acrandletter{o}{O}%
  \acrandletter{m}{M}\acrandletter{p}{P}\acrandletter{u}{U}\acrandletter{t}{T}%
  \acrandletter{e}{E}\acrandletter{r}{R}%
}
\newcommand{\np}{\textsc{notepat}}

\setlist[itemize]{nosep, leftmargin=1.2em, itemsep=0.1em}
\setlength{\columnsep}{1.8em}
\setlength{\parindent}{1em}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.3em}

% Hyphenation for narrow two-column layout
\tolerance=800
\emergencystretch=1em
\hyphenpenalty=50

\begin{document}

\twocolumn[{%
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4em]{pals}\par\vspace{0.5em}
{\acbold\fontsize{22pt}{26pt}\selectfont\color{acdark} Sucking on the Complex}\par
\vspace{0.2em}
{\aclight\fontsize{11pt}{13pt}\selectfont\color{acpink} Platform Hegemony, Critique-as-Content, and the Need for Anti-Environments}\par
\vspace{0.6em}
{\normalsize\href{https://prompt.ac/@jeffrey}{@jeffrey}}\par
{\small\color{acgray} Aesthetic.Computer}\par
{\small\color{acgray} ORCID: \href{https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4460-4913}{0009-0007-4460-4913}}\par
\vspace{0.3em}
{\small\color{acpurple} \url{https://aesthetic.computer}}\par
\vspace{0.6em}
\rule{\textwidth}{1.5pt}
\vspace{0.5em}
\end{center}

\begin{center}
{\small\color{acpink}\textbf{[ working draft --- not for citation ]}}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.3em}

\begin{quote}
\small\noindent\textbf{Abstract.}
The contemporary art world's media infrastructure is controlled by two companies: Meta and ByteDance. No artist career now exists without feeding data to Instagram or TikTok, platforms that flatten all creative disciplines into ``content,'' sort culture by engagement metrics, and behaviorally nudge artists into algorithmic bubbles with no free agency. This paper distinguishes between two responses to this totalized environment. \emph{Critique-as-art}---the dominant mode in galleries and institutions---points at the platform complex's power but only reinforces awareness of its dominance; the critique itself becomes content that feeds the machine. \emph{Anti-environments}---a term borrowed from Marshall McLuhan---build alternative infrastructure with new behaviors and processes around media, creating free spaces of play where art can grow uninterrupted by algorithmic direction. We survey prominent artists whose platform-critical work has been exhibited at major institutions, analyze why institutional critique of platforms is structurally self-defeating, and argue that the only escape from the complex is to build outside it.
\end{quote}
\vspace{0.5em}
}]

\section{The Totalized Environment}

Instagram is the gallery. TikTok is the distribution channel. Together, Meta and ByteDance constitute the totalized media environment for contemporary art. There is no outside.

For emerging and mid-career artists, a platform presence is increasingly a precondition for studio visits, fair invitations, and collector attention. Platform metrics---followers, engagement rate, post frequency---have become proxy measurements for cultural relevance. The price of visibility is data: every interaction feeds the advertising machine that funds the platform~\citep{zuboff2019surveillance}.

This is not a choice. It is infrastructure. Just as an artist in the 1960s needed a gallery to be visible, an artist in 2026 needs an Instagram account. The difference is that the gallery took a commission on sales; the platform takes behavioral data on every scroll, pause, like, and share---not just from the artist but from everyone who encounters the work~\citep{srnicek2017platform}.

Marshall McLuhan argued that you cannot perceive an environment from inside it. An environment is invisible to its inhabitants precisely because it is total. The only way to make an environment visible is to construct an \emph{anti-environment}---a counter-structure whose difference from the dominant environment reveals the environment's shape~\citep{mcluhan1969playboy}. What follows from this: you cannot critique the platform complex from inside it. You can only point at it. To actually see it, you have to build something else.

This paper observes that cultural production on platforms operates under conditions fundamentally different from those that have historically produced art. The algorithm is an invisible co-author---shaping what gets seen, rewarded, and therefore made. Art has historically required free spaces of play~\citep{winnicott1971playing, huizinga1938homo}: uninterrupted, ungoverned spaces where things grow on their own terms, with new behaviors and new processes around media. The platform has no such spaces. The only escape is to build anti-environments.

\section{The Complex}

\subsection{Hegemony}

Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp) and ByteDance (TikTok, Douyin) together mediate the cultural visibility of nearly every working artist on earth. Instagram alone has over three billion monthly active users; it is the primary discovery platform for galleries, curators, collectors, and institutions. TikTok's short-form video format has become the default distribution mechanism for performance, studio process, and art education. Together they constitute what \citet{nieborg2018platformization} call the ``platformization of cultural production'': the contingent cultural commodity, shaped not by artistic intention but by the platform's sorting logic.

\subsection{Behavioral nudging}

The algorithm does not passively display art. It actively shapes what art gets made. When an artist posts a painting and it receives high engagement, the algorithm shows it to more people. The artist, seeing the response, makes more paintings like it. The algorithm narrows; the artist narrows. This is not censorship---it is behavioral nudging, the same mechanism \citet{zuboff2019surveillance} identifies as the core of surveillance capitalism: the prediction and modification of human behavior at scale, for profit.

The result is cultural bubbles. An artist who makes abstract painting sees abstract painting. An artist who makes conceptual video sees conceptual video. The algorithm, optimizing for engagement, separates disciplines that historically existed in conversation: painting and sculpture and performance and criticism and theory, all in the same magazine, the same gallery, the same school. The platform has no such spaces. Everything is the feed.

\subsection{Flattening}

On Instagram, a painting by Gerhard Richter occupies the same 1080$\times$1080 pixel square as a photograph of someone's lunch. A video of Marina Abramovi{\'c} performing sits in the same scroll as a dance trend and a cooking tutorial. The platform makes no distinction between art and entertainment, between the work of decades and the work of seconds. This is not a failure of curation; it is the platform's design~\citep{chun2016updating}. Engagement is the only metric. Art that does not engage does not exist.

The historical infrastructure that maintained discipline-specific spaces---journals, catalogues, specialized criticism, department-specific funding---has been replaced by a single feed. \citet{lovink2011networks} calls this the ``network without a cause'': a structure that connects everything and contextualizes nothing.

\subsection{The orchestra as organizational power}

Jacques Attali argued in \emph{Noise}~\citep{attali1985noise} that the concert-hall orchestra is not merely a musical ensemble but an instrument of state power and social organization. The orchestra \emph{orchestrates}: it arranges bodies into hierarchical positions under a conductor's authority, demands synchronized obedience to a written score, and produces a unified output from controlled individual labor. For Attali, this is the ``representation'' era of music---music as spectacle, as demonstration of order, as proof that power can organize noise into harmony.

The tech platform is the orchestra of the twenty-first century. The founder is the conductor. The algorithm is the score. Artists, creators, and users are the musicians---each playing their part, each believing they are expressing themselves, each producing value that accrues to the institution. The platform's rhetoric of ``giving everyone a voice'' is representation-era language dressed in composition-era clothing. Everyone has a voice, but the algorithm decides who is heard. Everyone can create, but the platform decides what is visible.

Attali glorified what comes after representation: \emph{composition}, a mode where the distinction between performer and audience dissolves, where music is made for the joy of making it, where the folk song replaces the symphony. But the platform is not composition. It is representation at planetary scale---billions of musicians, one conductor, one score---with the additional extraction of behavioral data that even the court orchestra never achieved. The tech startup is structurally closer to the Hapsburg court orchestra than to the folk song. Both organize creative labor under centralized authority for the benefit of the institution. The difference is that the court paid its musicians.

\section{Critique-as-Art: Pointing at Power}

The dominant artistic response to platform hegemony has been to make work \emph{about} it. This work is exhibited in the world's most prestigious cultural institutions. It is celebrated, collected, and discussed. The structural conditions it describes remain unchanged.

\subsection{Photographing power}

Paglen photographs classified military installations from miles away, documents the physical infrastructure of surveillance (undersea cables, satellite ground stations), and has assembled datasets exposing the training images used in facial recognition AI. His work has been exhibited at the Whitney Museum, MoMA, the Smithsonian, Pace Gallery, and the Venice Biennale. It is rigorous, well-researched, and visually compelling.

But it only points at power. The gallery visitor leaves more informed about how vast the surveillance apparatus is---and that is the problem. The work advertises the complex's reach. It does not build counter-infrastructure, does not create alternative systems, does not offer escape routes. The visitor's takeaway is not ``here is a tool to resist'' but ``resistance is probably futile, look how big this is.''

\subsection{Analyzing circulation}

\citet{steyerl2017duty} describes a world of ``duty free art''---art produced in the free-trade zones of global capital, circulating without friction, untaxed and ungrounded. Her video installations at the Serpentine, the Venice Biennale, and the Park Avenue Armory are brilliant analyses of digital circulation, platform labor, and the politics of the screen.

But her analysis gets posted on Instagram, shared on TikTok, and discussed on the platforms she critiques. The critique feeds the machine. \citet{steyerl2009poor} argued that the ``poor image'' gains political power through its low-resolution circulation; but on Instagram, every image---poor or rich---generates the same behavioral data for Meta's advertising engine.

\subsection{Masking the face}

\citet{blas2014informatic} developed the ``Facial Weaponization Suite'' (2011--2014): collective masks generated from biometric data that defeat facial recognition. The work has been shown at the Whitechapel Gallery and presented at Tate Modern. It is a powerful metaphor for collective opacity, for the right to not be seen.

But the mask is an art object in a vitrine. It is not a tool you can wear. It was designed for the gallery wall, not for the street. The gesture toward resistance is contained by the institution that houses it.

\subsection{Archiving resistance}

Mindy Seu's \emph{Cyberfeminism Index}~\citep{seu2023cyberfeminism} is a comprehensive archive of over 700 resources tracing the history of cyberfeminist thought---bodies, sexuality, resistance, and agency in digital space. Seu distributed much of this research through Instagram Stories: ephemeral, full-screen, algorithmically sorted posts that disappear after 24 hours. The irony is structural: a feminist archive of digital resistance, including histories of sexual autonomy online, was made legible to the art world primarily through Meta's surveillance infrastructure. Each story view generated behavioral data for the same advertising engine that monetizes the bodies the archive seeks to liberate. The research is vital. The distribution channel undermines its politics.

\subsection{The pipeline}

The structural problem is not that these artists are insincere. It is that the pipeline from platform to institution is itself the complex at work. The sequence is: make content for the feed $\rightarrow$ get noticed by curators (who found you on Instagram) $\rightarrow$ exhibit the same content or critique in cultural institutions designed to house civilization's finest artifacts.

This pipeline degrades both ends. It makes the feed feel like art---``I saw Paglen's new work on my Instagram''---and it makes the institution feel like a feed---booth after booth of content at Art Basel, photographed and posted before the paint dries. \citet{fraser2005critique} identified this loop in institutional critique three decades ago; platform hegemony is the same structural problem with surveillance capitalism layered on top.

\citet{ulman2014excellences} scripted a five-month Instagram performance in 2014, manipulating the platform's logic of aspiration and self-display. The work was exhibited at Tate Modern in 2016. It is instructive: Ulman's piece succeeded precisely because it was indistinguishable from content. The platform did not know it was being used as material. The behavioral data it generated was identical to that of genuine lifestyle posts. The algorithm does not distinguish critique from endorsement. Paglen's photograph of an NSA facility gets more likes than a landscape painting. Both generate engagement. Both feed the machine.

\section{The Structural Trap}

Artists do not choose platforms freely. The platform \emph{is} the infrastructure. Without Instagram, there are no gallery visits, no studio visits, no collector attention. Without TikTok, there is no audience development for younger artists, no viral moment that translates to institutional interest.

Platform metrics---follower counts, engagement rates, story views---have become the proxy for cultural value. A gallery deciding between two artists of similar quality will choose the one with more followers, because followers translate to opening-night attendance, which translates to press coverage, which translates to sales. This is not cynicism; it is rational behavior within a system that has made platform metrics the primary legibility of cultural relevance.

The consequence is disciplinary collapse. Painting, sculpture, performance, video, installation, sound, writing, criticism---all become ``visual content'' on Instagram, ``short-form video'' on TikTok. Historical distinctions between disciplines, cultivated over centuries, dissolve into a single format optimized for attention~\citep{chun2016updating}. There is no equivalent of \textit{Artforum} or \textit{October} on Instagram---no space where a discipline's history, theory, and self-understanding can develop without algorithmic interference. \citet{noble2018algorithms} demonstrates that even search---the act of looking---is shaped by opaque ranking systems that reproduce existing hierarchies; the same structural logic governs the art feed.

\citet{terranova2000free} identified this twenty-five years ago as ``free labor'': the unwaged work of cultural production that generates value for platforms. Artists are the most dedicated free laborers in the attention economy. They produce high-quality, emotionally resonant content---the exact material the algorithm needs to keep users scrolling---and receive in return the illusion of visibility, a visibility that the platform can revoke at any time by changing the algorithm.

\section{Free Spaces of Play}

Art does not grow in feeds. It grows in free spaces.

\citet{winnicott1971playing} called this ``potential space''---a transitional area of experience between inner and outer reality, neither challenged nor conceded. It is the space where play happens, where symbols form, where creative experience becomes possible. Potential space is fragile. It requires safety, continuity, and freedom from intrusion.

\citet{huizinga1938homo} described the ``magic circle'' of play: a bounded space with its own rules, separated from ordinary life. Inside the magic circle, the rules of the outside world are suspended. A chessboard is a magic circle. A rehearsal room is a magic circle. A studio, when it is working, is a magic circle.

The platform has no magic circle. Every creative act performed on Instagram is immediately measured, sorted, ranked, and fed back as engagement data. There is no uninterrupted space. The algorithm is always watching, always scoring, always nudging. The ``potential space'' collapses into metrics the moment the work is posted. Fisher called this \emph{capitalist realism}~\citep{fisher2009capitalist}: the pervasive sense that there is no alternative, that the platform is the only possible infrastructure for cultural production. The realism is not in the content but in the inability to imagine otherwise.

Art grows in spaces where it is \emph{not} directed. A studio. A residency. A rehearsal room. A sketchbook. A late-night conversation that goes nowhere useful. These spaces have no algorithm. They have no engagement metrics. They have no behavioral nudging. The platform has eliminated them---not by destroying them physically, but by making visibility contingent on posting. If you don't post, you don't exist. And if you post, the algorithm directs what you make next. \citet{benjamin2019race} calls this the ``New Jim Code'': technologies that appear neutral but encode and amplify existing power structures. The platform's algorithmic direction of artistic production is one such encoding---it rewards what is already legible to the system and penalizes what is not.

\section{Two Pedagogies}

The platform crisis is also a pedagogical crisis. What students are taught---spiritually, ambition-wise, in their bones---determines what kind of culture they build.

\subsection{The art school}

\citet{elkins2001why} argues that art cannot be taught---not because it is unteachable, but because what happens in a good art school cannot be reduced to a curriculum. The crit, the studio visit, the years of making work that fails: these are the conditions under which singular artistic knowledge forms. \citet{singerman1999art} traces how the American university shaped what art could be, from atelier to craft to theory. \citet{deduve1994attitude} identifies three paradigms: the academy (talent-imitation), the Bauhaus (creativity-medium-invention), and the postwar art school (attitude-practice-deconstruction). Each created different kinds of artists because each created different spaces for formation.

The art school at its best is a magic circle~\citep{huizinga1938homo}. Students make work without metrics. The crit is a ritual of sustained attention---sometimes brutal, sometimes silent, always slow---where a group of people look at one thing for an hour and try to say what it is. There is no algorithm. There is no engagement score. The ambition is not to scale but to deepen. \citet{hooks1994teaching} calls this ``engaged pedagogy'': teaching as the practice of freedom, where the well-being of teacher and student matters as much as the content~\citep{freire1970pedagogy}.

\citet{spivak2012aesthetic} argues that aesthetic education---the rigorous training of the imagination---is necessary for ethical solidarity, for the capacity to apprehend the double bind at the heart of democracy. Art school teaches this. Instagram does not.

Bernard Stiegler's concept of \emph{idiotext}---the singular memory woven through technical prostheses---describes exactly what a good art education produces~\citep{staunaes2021stiegler, stiegler1998technics}. Over years of studio practice, the student builds a spiral of knowledge: each work incorporates and transforms the last, creating a tertiary retention---an externalized memory---that is irreducibly personal. The crit, the studio, the sketchbook, the failed piece: these are the prostheses through which the idiotext forms. The platform short-circuits this spiral. It replaces years of slow accumulation with instant feedback, replacing the idiotext's depth with the feed's breadth.

\subsection{The tech school}

\citet{turner2006counterculture} traces how the 1960s counterculture's anti-bureaucratic ideals were repurposed as Silicon Valley's digital utopianism via Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Catalog, and Stanford. The d.school's five-step design thinking process---empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test---is the Bauhaus creativity-medium-invention paradigm stripped of criticality and accelerated to sprint speed. \citet{vinsel2020innovation} calls it ``innovation-speak'': an intellectual and moral lie that leads us to focus on novelty while ignoring maintenance.

The tech school teaches a different spiritual alignment entirely. The ambition is to scale. The metric is growth. The medium is the pitch deck. Meta officially retired ``move fast and break things'' in 2014, but the theology persists: disruption is inherently good, what is new is inherently better, what cannot be measured does not exist. Art school teaches you to sit with ambiguity for years. Tech school teaches you to resolve ambiguity in a sprint.

The danger is not that tech pedagogy exists---engineers need to build things---but that it has colonized art pedagogy. ``Creative coding'' programs that are really startup incubators. MFA programs that require artist statements written as pitch decks. Studio visits that feel like product reviews. The design thinking methodology imported into art schools, replacing the slow, unquantifiable crit with the fast, metrics-driven sprint review. When art schools teach students to optimize for engagement, they are teaching them to suckle on the complex.

\section{Anti-Environments}

You cannot critique the complex from inside it. You have to build something else.

McLuhan's anti-environment is not a protest. It is a structure. It makes the dominant environment visible not by describing it but by being different from it---what Shklovsky called \emph{defamiliarization}~\citep{shklovsky1917art}: art's power to make the habitual strange, to force perception where automation would otherwise prevail. The fish does not see water until it is on land~\citep{mcluhan1964understanding}. Nelson's \emph{Computer Lib}~\citep{nelson1974computerlib} was itself an anti-environment: a self-published, hand-laid-out manifesto declaring that personal computing was a form of liberation, distributed outside the publishing industry it critiqued. \citet{lanier2018ten} arrives at a similar conclusion from inside the industry: he argues that social media's behavioral modification makes meaningful creative agency impossible and that the only rational response is to leave. Historical precedents exist: community radio, mail art networks, zine culture, and Fluxus distribution circuits all functioned as anti-environments to the broadcast media of their time. Some survived; many were absorbed.

\subsection{Radical distribution}

Goodiepal (Gæoudjiansen) is a Danish-Faroese composer and radical pedagogue who refuses platform logic entirely~\citep{scudder2026goodiepal}. He distributes work through traveling lectures (often by velomobile), hand-carried media, and face-to-face transmission. His El Camino del Hardcore documents the labor conditions of radical computing. The work \emph{is} the infrastructure: there is no separation between the art and the system that carries it. He does not critique Meta. He has never needed it.

\subsection{Aesthetic Computer}

\ac{} builds its own runtime, its own social network, its own instrument (\np{}.com), its own operating system~\citep{scudder2026ac, scudder2026notepat, scudder2026os}. It is not critique-as-art but infrastructure-as-art. The behaviors are new: memorizable paths instead of feeds, pieces instead of posts, instruments you play instead of profiles you curate. The platform \emph{is} the work. The Whistlegraph project~\citep{scudder2026whistlegraph}, which reached approximately 2.7 million TikTok followers, demonstrated that viral culture could be built on a foundation of drawing and singing rather than algorithmic optimization. The contradiction is real: the anti-environment achieved its largest audience \emph{through} the complex. When the trio went on hiatus in late 2023, the TikTok account and its 2.7 million followers remained---but the underlying creative practice of drawing and singing continued independently, because it had never been dependent on the platform's infrastructure. The audience is rented. The practice is owned.

\subsection{Indigenous and decolonial computing}

\citet{lewis2018making} propose ``making kin with the machines''---an Indigenous framework for computing that centers relational rather than transactional interaction, care rather than extraction, kinship rather than consumption. \citet{escobar2018designs} describes ``designs for the pluriverse'': design practices grounded in radical interdependence that refuse the monoculture of platform logic. \citet{costanzachock2020design} articulates design justice as community-led practice. These are not critiques of Meta. They are blueprints for worlds that do not need Meta.

\subsection{The key distinction}

Paglen photographs the NSA from outside the fence. \ac{} builds a fence around a different yard---with new instruments, new processes, new ways of being creative that do not require feeding data to Meta. The folk song survives without platforms, through direct human action~\citep{scudder2026ac}. The piece runs on bare metal, without a browser, without an internet connection. The anti-environment is not against the complex. It is simply elsewhere.

\section{The Art Fair Paradox}

Art Basel, Frieze, and the Venice Biennale are all dependent on Instagram for marketing, audience development, and collector outreach. Artists shown at these fairs must have platform presence to be ``discoverable.'' The fair itself becomes content: booth photographs, VIP preview posts, collector stories, artist studio visits---all posted, all measured, all feeding the same behavioral engine.

Even ``anti-platform'' work is platformized the moment it is photographed and posted. A Goodiepal lecture becomes an Instagram story. An \ac{} piece becomes a TikTok demo. \citet{haacke1971shapolsky} exposed the real-estate interests behind museum trustees in 1971; today the exposure would be an Instagram carousel. The structural critique is the same---but now there is surveillance capitalism layered on top, and the institution itself needs the platform as badly as the artist does.

\citet{illich1973tools} wrote: ``I choose the term `conviviality' to designate the opposite of industrial productivity.'' The anti-environment for art is convivial: it is built at human scale, by hand, for use rather than consumption, outside the logic of engagement and extraction.

\section{Conclusion}

The complex is real. You can critique it from inside---and your critique will be measured, sorted, ranked, and monetized. Or you can build anti-environments: new spaces, new behaviors, new processes around media. Ideally both. But critique alone, exhibited in institutions that depend on the complex for their audience, only demonstrates the complex's totality.

Anti-environments are harder to build, harder to sustain, and harder to get funded than critique-as-art. That is the point. If they were easy, the platform would have already absorbed them. The difficulty is the signal that something real is being attempted: a free space of play, uninterrupted by the algorithm, where art---not content---can grow.

\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent\textbf{ORCID:} \href{https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4460-4913}{0009-0007-4460-4913}

\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{references}

\end{document}