always and forever tied to the lamplight

This post on David Byrne's blog takes particular notice of the semi-offensive use of the term "content." Byrne writes that maybe he "might be kinda oversimplifying things," but it seems a bit like exploitation of artistic creation for financial profit. Sound familiar?

I think that there is a new kind of insidious effect that the word "content" causes, beyond the corporate business interests of old. Judging from that cover article from the NY Times Magazine a few weeks ago about web-ifying every written word that's ever existed, the trend to see "content" and "information" as a genre that surpasses anything purely artistic or contextual is ever-increasing. Yes, genres themselves are marketing tools, but what I mean is that people sense a kind of soul about a work of art which they definitely do not with a ringtone. I will allow for the possibility of a future land in which ringtones function as artistic endeavors, but as far as I know that hasn't evolved quite yet. The fringes are where art cultivates life and this will never change, but how grotesquely consumerist can we possibly get before enough is enough?