The process of content creation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
One of Ingold\u2019s main arguments is that making is not a linear process, but rather an evolving relationship between the maker and the materials they work with. He writes that \u201cmaking creates knowledge, builds environments and transforms lives\u201d (Ingold, 2013, p.1). This perspective resonates strongly with the world of content creation. Many assume that creating online content is as simple as coming up with an idea and executing it, but in reality, it is a continuous process of experimentation and adaptation. A content creator may start with a basic idea, but as they film, edit, and engage with feedback the idea evolves. The \u201cmaterials\u201d of content creation are not just physical tools like cameras and editing software; they also include trends, cultural conversations, algorithms, and the audiences themselves. In this sense, social media creation is an ongoing dialogue between creator, material, and environment, much like Ingold\u2019s conception of making.
Ingold\u2019s example of the mason further illustrates this point. He explains that traditional masons learned their craft through practice and mentorship rather than formal education (Ingold, 2013, p.52). Their knowledge came from direct engagement with materials like \u201ctrowel, plumb line and string\u201d (Ingold, 2013, p52) which guided their learning and skill development. This process closely parallels how many content creators work today. Few creators attend formal training programs in content creation; instead, they learn through trial and error, observing others, and experimenting with new techniques. For instance, when I first started creating videos, I did not have access to professional equipment. I used natural lighting, basic editing apps, and my phone to bring my ideas to life. Over time, I learned how different materials, for instance light, sound, and even social media algorithms shaped my work. Like the masons, creators learn by doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another key concept Ingold explores is that creativity is inherently relational; it develops through connections with people and materials. He writes, \u201cWe go to study with people, and we hope to learn from them\u201d (Ingold, 2013, p.2). This anthropological approach aligns with how many creators learn and grow today. Being part of a creative community is important for inspiration and growth. Personally, I feel most motivated when surrounded by other creators because brainstorming new ideas, assisting on shoots, and watching others work spark my creativity and help me think differently about my own projects. Many creators also rely on their audiences for this same kind of learning. Asking questions like \u201cWhat do you want to see next?\u201d allows creators to engage in a dialogue that both inspires and informs their process. This is why anthropology in the making process is important as Ingold mentions. The connection between Ingold\u2019s theories and social media becomes even clearer when we consider the concept of evocative objects. Social media platforms themselves can be seen as evocative objects, tools that evoke emotions and dependencies. For many creators, these platforms are more than just spaces for sharing work; they become extensions of identity and creativity. However, this connection can also become overwhelming. For instance, if a creator stops posting for several months, they often see a drop in engagement, followers, and even income opportunities. I\u2019ve experienced this myself feeling pressured to post regularly, not because I was inspired, but because I feared losing visibility. Over time, this reliance on social media can blur the line between passion and obligation. Ingold\u2019s reminder that materials should support thinking, not control it. Creators need to maintain a healthy relationship with their platforms and use them as tools for creative exploration rather than letting them dictate their worth or direction. Reflecting on Ingold\u2019s ideas through the lens of social media has given me a deeper understanding of my own creative process. I\u2019ve learned that making is not about perfection or linear progress, it’s about engaging with materials, environments, and people in ways that generate knowledge and growth. Anthropology and ethnography offer valuable frameworks for understanding how creators learn and evolve within communities. They remind us that creativity is not isolated; it is social, collaborative, and constantly changing. Ingold\u2019s theories encourage creators to think critically about their tools and to embrace the process of making as a form of inquiry. Social media should serve as a space for exploration, not a trap of comparison or pressure. By thinking through<\/em> making rather than simply producing algorithms or trends creators can rediscover the joy and curiosity that fuel genuine creativity.Ingold\u2019s Making<\/em> ultimately challenges us to rethink what it means to create in the modern media. Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Making<\/em>. (n.d.). http:\/\/ndl.ethernet.edu.et\/bitstream\/123456789\/8315\/1\/179.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n Images are all mine. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Making as a Source of Media-Theoretical Tools Introduction Throughout this class, we have explored many topics, but one area we have not yet deeply examined is social media, something that has had a tremendous influence on our everyday lives. After reading Tim Ingold\u2019s Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, I began to see common parallels … Continue reading Content creation is not a linear process<\/span> ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/files\/2025\/10\/IMG_7956-2-768x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nAnthropology and Ethnograpy relationship with content creation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ingold\u2019s concept that \u201cmaterials think in us, as we think through them\u201d (Ingold, 2013, p.2) further deepens this connection. For content creators, the \u201cmaterials\u201d might include digital tools like editing software or even the social platforms themselves. When creators work with these tools, they are not just manipulating them, instead they are also shaped by the tools’ affordances and limitations. The platform\u2019s design, algorithm, and audience behavior all influence how creators think and what they produce. This two-way relationship highlights Ingold\u2019s notion that thinking and making are inseparable; our thoughts are formed through the process of working with materials.
While anthropology emphasizes learning through relationships, ethnography focuses on observing and documenting human experiences. In the context of social media, ethnography can be compared to how creators use data and analytics to understand their audiences. Engagement metrics, user-generated content, and algorithm trends all act as forms of documentation that inform creators\u2019 strategies. Ingold, however, cautions against relying too heavily on documentation and accuracy, noting that \u201cthe speculative, experimental and open-ended character of arts practice is bound to compromise ethnography\u2019s commitment to descriptive accuracy\u201d (Ingold, 2013, p.8). This means that strict adherence to data or predetermined formulas can hinder creativity. The same applies to content creation while analytics can provide useful guidance, they should not dictate every decision. Even if a creator uses the information from the analytics for success, there is no guarantee that their content will resonate. Creativity thrives on uncertainty and risk-taking, not just replication.
<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Art of inquiry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
I also found Ingold\u2019s discussion of the \u201cart of inquiry\u201d particularly insightful. He describes anthropology as an \u201c\u2018\u2019indispensable to the practice of anthropology as an art of inquiry\u2019\u2019\u201d (Ingold, 2013, p.2). This suggests that makers, through their curiosity and exploration, embody the same investigative spark as anthropologists. Many content creators express a similar mindset that they constantly observe, experiment, and learn from the world around them. Interestingly, this also raises questions about influence and intention. Many creators resist the label of \u201cinfluencer\u201d because they associate it with inauthenticity or a label that they will have to rely on. However, Ingold\u2019s theory suggests that all makers inevitably influence others through their work. Whether they intend to or not, content creators shape public conversations, trends, and perceptions. Recognizing this influence can empower creators to approach their work more thoughtfully, considering how their content might impact their audiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConcluding thoughts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n