Feudalism & the Artist:
A 21st-Century Meditation
Week 1 of our new series Feudalism & the Artist begins with the blueprint: how the artist became the landlord of culture, and how the platforms learned to rule.
When the Muse Built the Castle
Playing Now:
Week 2: Echoes from the Altar:
A Litany for the Makers
The hand may tire, the voice grow still, yet the altar keeps the maker’s will.
Content isn't sacred. It's currency.
Post, perform, provoke.
Forget the source--does it spike engagement?
“Feeling something? Good. Rage, grief, desire--we’ll sort it."
The Platform’s Promise:
You never need to pause. We’ll queue the next song. Auto-play the next thought. Read your silence as a preference.
“You stopped scrolling for 2.4 seconds. We noticed."
Prologue
: When the Image Becomes the Architect
of the Self
In the age of the screen, the image has become more than a record--it has become a ruler. It governs not with laws or edits but with impressions and filters. The image does not simply represent the world; it arranges it, assigns value to it, and teaches us what to desire. It builds a version of reality brick by emotional brick, until the structure feels inevitable.
This is where the artist finds themselves now--in a cultural economy that rhymes, uncomfortably, with the systems of feudal power. The modern court is not a castle, but a platform. The patrons are not monarchs, but algorithms. The currency is not coin, but attention. And the artist, as ever, must decide whether to serve, resist, or slip between the two in order to survive.
In medieval courts, the artist painted saints and sovereigns to affirm the established order. In the 21st century, we are asked--subtly, constantly--to paint ourselves into a narrative that sells. The question has not changed as much as the frame: what is the cost of saying no?
It is in this climate that 'When the Image Becomes the Architect of the Self' lands, or settles, it is not merely as a meditation on the personal but a map of the terrain in which every artist, writer, and maker must now walk. And like the serfs and courtiers of the past, the artist must navigate a structure that was not built for their freedom, but can still be shaped by their presence.
There was a time when images were ornaments--frames on mantels, icons in shrines, windows into other people’s lives. But somewhere along our timeline they changed occupation. The image, once a passive holder of truth, became a curator of reality. And then, a weapon.
Curated aesthetics--those glossy stills and stylised reels that flood our screens--no longer merely represent. They impress and rewrite as they slip beneath language and logic to murmur, “This is how life should look. This is not who YOU are."
In this way, the image becomes an architect of self. It scaffolds identity with illusion, building belief structures from envy, nostalgia, fear or any of the dark emotion so that what was once documentation becomes manipulation. Today, people do not just absorb images. They live inside them. And some souls are slowly being erased by them. Think a VCR view that you fall into and can’t walk away from and you realise that what was an amazing experience became your own special haunting. When I speak of 'images,’ I don’t mean only photographs. I mean all visual expressions that seek to shape perception--stills, reels, icons, and even the imagined snapshots we carry of ourselves. The image today is not just something we look at. It is something we live inside.
Images like scent bypass the analytical cortex to travel straight to the limbic system--the emotional brain. This is where we feel first and think later. So when confronted with an image of beauty, threat, or belonging, we don’t just observe it; we experience it. The brain, trained by years of exposure, begins to form patterns. It reads the smile, the framing, the sunlit filter and whispers: “This is happiness." It compares; records and imitates--because that is what it was made to do. Social media intensifies this process by looping exposure. A single idea is not seen once--it is seen hundreds of times a day. This repetition forms a psychological imprint, and eventually a false baseline. Suddenly, your own kitchen looks too dark. Your laughter feels unfiltered. Your life seems out of step with what "should be."
This discrepancy triggers a subtle grief: not a grand mourning, but a slow erosion of contentment. We begin to curate ourselves to fit the frame--posing, retouching and editing reality for the feed. The self is no longer rooted in memory or experience but in a stream of performative echoes.
This curated self-image becomes addictive. Each like affirms the illusion. Each silence punishes deviation. The emotional response to digital images--anxiety, jealousy, inspiration, guilt--is not accidental. It is engineered. And so, we return to the architect, the image, now refined does not merely echo reality, but constructs it from tacky dregs lacquered in nostalgia, brick by emotional bric.
In an era where visuals shape the psyche more swiftly than sermons or speeches, the ethics of image-making can no longer be passive. The photographer, the influencer, the designer, the editor--each holds power akin to the ancient iconographer, except now their canvas is infinite, their reach exponential, their audience often unaware.
We have entered an age of ambient propaganda. No dictator required. No manifesto printed. Instead, control comes softly: a slideshow of faces more beautiful than yours, bodies more disciplined, lifestyles more serene. The framing is friendly, even charming. And yet it carries the weight of suggestion, expectation, and erasure. It is one thing to share your life. It is another to weaponize aesthetics to elicit emotional compliance whether envy to sell a product, fear to control a vote, or idealism to mask exploitation.
A new ethic must arise--one of discernment that recognises the spiritual and psychological consequence of the image, for the image-maker is now, unavoidably, a shaper of identity, and to frame is to choose; to edit is to omit, and to publish is to suggest.
The question that remains is whose story does the image tell and what part of us is it trying to rewrite?
To counter this image-saturated drift, we must learn to see again--not through the lens of aspiration or illusion, but through the practice of attention. This begins with slowing down. Looking closely. Asking: What is real in this frame? What part of me responds--and why?
We can begin not by curating the self, but by meeting it. As John O’Donohue wrote, “When the soul is ready, its path becomes clear."
To see clearly is not to control the view, it is to be ready to walk the unseen path with presence. We can let our kitchens remain shadowed. We can love the wrinkle, the pause, the undone hair. We can post images that do not perfect but reveal. And more importantly, we can become conscious consumers of the visual: to scroll with discernment, to remember the stories that are not being told, to resist the lure of consensus that comes in pixels.
To be seen truthfully is a radical act. To see others without projection, an even greater one. The image may have become the architect of the self--but perhaps, with care, the self can reclaim the blueprint by choosing presence over polish, integrity over influence. By being as we truly are unfinished, ordinary and luminous.
To Truly Be
We turn our gaze where none would see,
For truth, once named, can stain the air.
But silence births no remedy--
You clear the fog by standing there.
Mari 03/08/2025