@Russell Nohelty not only writes LONG, informative posts ... he delivers some great one-liners. I loved this one and think it may be the most powerful skill I'm learning here in the Substack Universe:
"The better you curate, the stronger your vision, and the deeper the connection you build with your audience."
I have not considered 'curation', but rather focused on 'evergreen'...and I'm seeing that's definitely not the same thing. This article has me rethinking many aspects of my path as I map out the next 3-6 months of content.
Yes, yes, yes! I totally agree with publications dying because theyβre using data (rather than taste). I worked as an art curator and over the years thatβs extended to now being a βculture curator.β I used to think curators were closeted artists but now see curation as itβs own art form.
This was so great! Especially in today's world of so many choices, and readers being addicted to distraction. I've always believed if you want to get a busy person's attention, you have to make them feel something! I've subscribed to a lot of Substack Newsletters lately (as I'm just learning the platform and want to get a feel for it) I don't open all of them, because I forget who these people are, but I opened this one today because I've been conditioned to know that Russell's Newsletters make me feel something! Well done!
What a fascinating way to look at blogging and (ugh) "branding oneself!" For years, I've felt an intense pressure of "too much to read, not enough time and mental energy," so I deeply appreciate the need for curation. Meanwhile, I love Pinterest and sometimes Tumblr because I can, like a magpie, assemble beautiful and interesting images, articles, recipes, or whatever moves me into organized heaps -- and before I know it, I'm curating.
This is such an encouraging way to look at creating, and marketing what I create! It's a way to please an audience and make money without giving up artistic integrity.
However, it's also overwhelming. I'm a person with limited time and energy myself, and it takes a lot to explore things so others don't have to. And because I occupy an idiosyncratic niche between the neuroscience, psychology, and disability worlds, there's a lot of news to follow and process. ;) At the moment, while my judgment is consistent, whether something exists on my blog is less about "what's worth knowing" and more about "what's worth knowing that I have the time and energy to bring into the world." Maybe becoming a faster researcher and writer would make curation easier?
I get that. The nice thing is that you shouldn't really need to do much new. It just means when you are going about your life, look intentionally and say "I think X would like that" or "I think my readers would like that". It is a bit magpie b/c you are just collecting baubles that seem interesting. I don't think a magpie goes in search of things as much as finds things on their way that reminds them of other things.
This was a really interesting read! You are so right about the value of curation and why it is that people value our writing. It made me think about why I read others' publications, particularly the ones that I look forward to receiving the most. I'm going to do some thinking about what my own writing does for and to my readers.
I found the A24 observation interesting. Taste from an organisation is a house style. You can see a consistency across, e.g., A24, Vogue, Sports Illustrated. And I mean you can seeing it--in the image you've used for Vogue, especially.
100%. Kids these days call it vibes, or whatever, but it's the same stuff. Similarly, we all have our own house style, even if we're not artists. I often break people when I tell them that even your nana has a brand, but it's true. The more we can lean into it and paint a picture for people, the more people that grok that vibe will find us. That doesn't mean you have to ALWAYS stay in that vibe, but we've all got that stuff we fall back on. I'll always love a creepy gothic fantasy with strong portal fantasy vibes. for instance, even if I like all the things.
Thank you for this really helpful and insightful post, Russell.
I like the notion of curation and agree that it's a helpful framing for us to put together our newsletters. This, of course, goes beyond just recommendations of what to read/listen to/watch. We also curate by paying attention to something.
You mention trust, and I think that's the key. Trust is precious because there are few shortcuts to it and it's easily lost. It's built over time and we all know it can be lost in an instant.
I still believe in the importance of curation and its commercial value from a media perspective, especially in these times when so many feel overwhelmed by choice. As you say, "They are paying for the time you have saved them in finding things worth reading. People pay well for great curation."
However, too often I see round-ups/lists of supposedly cool or interesting things that others should check out. Those lists are also becoming longer and safer. Dare I say too algorithmic. Not enough thought is given to presentation, context or the element of surprise. It's the difference between an exhaustive themed playlist and a hosted radio show.
In other words, the curation is not tight enough and could be bolder. Curating isn't just selecting, shortlisting or arranging. From a writer's perspective, in particular, it's saying why X is important to me and suggesting how it might resonate with you. Side Q: are curators leaving enough room to be random?
The danger is that the reader forsakes deeper insight or grappling with less familiar and challenging work in favour of the satisfaction of whizzing through a grab bag of things that are too similar or derivative and quick to digest.
Also, more curators could become better writers. You/we can offer more value than taste and options.
It's early days for me on here with Bluejeans & Moonbeams. Contents, form and frequency are still under consideration. I am trying offer to a blend of longer-form personal reflections on arts and culture while also saving readers time by spotlighting other people's work, introduced by editor's notes.
As a whole, too lengthy perhaps but several regulars appreciate the blend and depth of my dispatches. Let's keep evolving.
@Russell Nohelty not only writes LONG, informative posts ... he delivers some great one-liners. I loved this one and think it may be the most powerful skill I'm learning here in the Substack Universe:
"The better you curate, the stronger your vision, and the deeper the connection you build with your audience."
Yay!!! So excited it resonated withi you :)
Thank you ππ»
I have not considered 'curation', but rather focused on 'evergreen'...and I'm seeing that's definitely not the same thing. This article has me rethinking many aspects of my path as I map out the next 3-6 months of content.
Great article, @Russell. Thank you.
Yay! Awesome :)
This is so interesting and brilliant and I have to read it again a few more times to let it sink in. π
Yay!! So glad you liked it :)
Yes, yes, yes! I totally agree with publications dying because theyβre using data (rather than taste). I worked as an art curator and over the years thatβs extended to now being a βculture curator.β I used to think curators were closeted artists but now see curation as itβs own art form.
It really is it's own art form. I love that you said art form too.
This one made me think more deeply about what I'm doing on Substack. Thank you for this perspective.
This was so great! Especially in today's world of so many choices, and readers being addicted to distraction. I've always believed if you want to get a busy person's attention, you have to make them feel something! I've subscribed to a lot of Substack Newsletters lately (as I'm just learning the platform and want to get a feel for it) I don't open all of them, because I forget who these people are, but I opened this one today because I've been conditioned to know that Russell's Newsletters make me feel something! Well done!
Thatβs amazing! I love it :)
What a fascinating way to look at blogging and (ugh) "branding oneself!" For years, I've felt an intense pressure of "too much to read, not enough time and mental energy," so I deeply appreciate the need for curation. Meanwhile, I love Pinterest and sometimes Tumblr because I can, like a magpie, assemble beautiful and interesting images, articles, recipes, or whatever moves me into organized heaps -- and before I know it, I'm curating.
This is such an encouraging way to look at creating, and marketing what I create! It's a way to please an audience and make money without giving up artistic integrity.
However, it's also overwhelming. I'm a person with limited time and energy myself, and it takes a lot to explore things so others don't have to. And because I occupy an idiosyncratic niche between the neuroscience, psychology, and disability worlds, there's a lot of news to follow and process. ;) At the moment, while my judgment is consistent, whether something exists on my blog is less about "what's worth knowing" and more about "what's worth knowing that I have the time and energy to bring into the world." Maybe becoming a faster researcher and writer would make curation easier?
I get that. The nice thing is that you shouldn't really need to do much new. It just means when you are going about your life, look intentionally and say "I think X would like that" or "I think my readers would like that". It is a bit magpie b/c you are just collecting baubles that seem interesting. I don't think a magpie goes in search of things as much as finds things on their way that reminds them of other things.
This was a really interesting read! You are so right about the value of curation and why it is that people value our writing. It made me think about why I read others' publications, particularly the ones that I look forward to receiving the most. I'm going to do some thinking about what my own writing does for and to my readers.
Awesome!
I found the A24 observation interesting. Taste from an organisation is a house style. You can see a consistency across, e.g., A24, Vogue, Sports Illustrated. And I mean you can seeing it--in the image you've used for Vogue, especially.
100%. Kids these days call it vibes, or whatever, but it's the same stuff. Similarly, we all have our own house style, even if we're not artists. I often break people when I tell them that even your nana has a brand, but it's true. The more we can lean into it and paint a picture for people, the more people that grok that vibe will find us. That doesn't mean you have to ALWAYS stay in that vibe, but we've all got that stuff we fall back on. I'll always love a creepy gothic fantasy with strong portal fantasy vibes. for instance, even if I like all the things.
I've long been a believer in the value of curation and you have laid this out very well, Russell. Thank you.
Yay!
Thanks so much for this post! I think on a subconscious level, I understood this. But thinking about it in that curation mindset is so helpful
So happy it resonated with you
Thank you for this really helpful and insightful post, Russell.
I like the notion of curation and agree that it's a helpful framing for us to put together our newsletters. This, of course, goes beyond just recommendations of what to read/listen to/watch. We also curate by paying attention to something.
You mention trust, and I think that's the key. Trust is precious because there are few shortcuts to it and it's easily lost. It's built over time and we all know it can be lost in an instant.
Iβm glad it resonated and I think you are right on the money about it all.
This was such a treat to read. Writers as drug dealers = best thing Iβve read all week. Thank you so much for writing this piece!
Yay!!
Very interesting to read
Yay!
I still believe in the importance of curation and its commercial value from a media perspective, especially in these times when so many feel overwhelmed by choice. As you say, "They are paying for the time you have saved them in finding things worth reading. People pay well for great curation."
However, too often I see round-ups/lists of supposedly cool or interesting things that others should check out. Those lists are also becoming longer and safer. Dare I say too algorithmic. Not enough thought is given to presentation, context or the element of surprise. It's the difference between an exhaustive themed playlist and a hosted radio show.
In other words, the curation is not tight enough and could be bolder. Curating isn't just selecting, shortlisting or arranging. From a writer's perspective, in particular, it's saying why X is important to me and suggesting how it might resonate with you. Side Q: are curators leaving enough room to be random?
The danger is that the reader forsakes deeper insight or grappling with less familiar and challenging work in favour of the satisfaction of whizzing through a grab bag of things that are too similar or derivative and quick to digest.
Also, more curators could become better writers. You/we can offer more value than taste and options.
It's early days for me on here with Bluejeans & Moonbeams. Contents, form and frequency are still under consideration. I am trying offer to a blend of longer-form personal reflections on arts and culture while also saving readers time by spotlighting other people's work, introduced by editor's notes.
As a whole, too lengthy perhaps but several regulars appreciate the blend and depth of my dispatches. Let's keep evolving.
I literally just said that thing in the article. So, I agree with you, because I said that thing in fewer, different words.