The Instagram Effect; Exploring the intersections on Platforms, Political Economy, Digital

Aesthetics, Arts and Culture.

Introduction:
The digital age has brought a paradigm shift that transcends political economy, culture,
and social interaction. As digital platforms become increasingly a part of our daily lives, they
also develop into complicated spaces where many forces, including those linked to labor,
economics, aesthetics, and emotions, intersect and interact. Underneath the carefully selected
photographs and astute text is a complicated web of emotional responses and political
implications. This essay examines this complicated environment to understand how aesthetics,
the arts, and digital politics interact using Instagram as a media platform. Instagram's
aesthetically pleasing design puts aesthetics first and encourages users to create captivating
content. With Instagram as a focal point as an example of a digital platform, this essay examines
the complex interactions between these forces. We will examine how important academic
theories, such as immaterial labor (Oksala 2016), rentier capitalism (Sadowski 2020), the politics
of aesthetics (Rancière 2004), affect theory (Tomkins 2014), and affect theory, overlap,
influence, and sometimes complicate one another in the context of digital media (Instagram). I
will thoroughly grasp the intricacies that characterize our interactions with digital platforms
through this multi-disciplinary perspective, especially in the neoliberal era. The article will make
the case that Instagram acts as a microcosm of these dynamics, encapsulating the conflicts and
collaborations between economic theories, aesthetic preferences, emotional involvement, and the
evolving nature of work in the digital age.

How Instagram Fits These Theories:

Instagram serves as a microcosm of the intricate interplay between aesthetics, affect, and
the politics of digital media. It is a platform where individuals' aesthetic preferences have
ramifications for their personal and political lives. Instagram is fundamentally about aesthetics
and form. Users carefully select the images and videos they upload, frequently applying filters
and other editing tools to achieve a certain aesthetic or mood. The site emphasizes visuals over
text to create a visually appealing experience.

 Affect and Judgement: The "like" and "comment" buttons on Instagram postings instantly
manifest emotive responses. Users frequently evaluate information depending on the

1
 emotions it evokes in them, such as happiness, inspiration, or even envy. Emoji usage
gives the interactions another dimension of effect.
 Politics of Aesthetics: In many cases, algorithms based on engagement metrics—which
may or may not correspond to users' preferences—determine what is seen and by whom.
This signifies what physical characteristics, way of life, and pursuits are considered
"valuable" or "beautiful."
 Digital Media and Labor: Instagram serves as a marketplace, a location to establish
brands, and a platform for personal sharing. Influencers and companies spend time and
money developing content for their followers that will keep them interested, effectively
converting their aesthetic preferences into labor.

Key Concepts and Theories:

Digital media, economics, and culture combine to form a complex landscape formed by
conflicting theories and ideas. Instagram acts as a microcosm of these forces, encapsulating the
conflicts between rentier capitalism, the politics of aesthetics, affect theory, and the evolving
nature of work in the digital age. These theories provide insightful conceptual frameworks for
comprehending the complexity of our digital lives. The idea of "rentier capitalism," which
contends that wealth can be accumulated through controlling and leasing assets rather than
creating products or services, is one of the fundamental notions underlying this discourse
(Sadowski 2020). These assets, like data or digital platforms, are frequently intangible in the
digital era. Instagram acts as an online platform, allowing users to post material while gathering
data and generating cash through advertisements. This aligns with the "platform capitalism"
theory, in which platforms serve as middlemen for new capitalization and economic circulation.

The "politics of aesthetics," which refers to how aesthetic judgements are influenced by
and influence social and political systems, is another crucial idea (Rancière 2004). The
algorithmic curating of content on Instagram can be viewed as a form of aesthetic governance
that shapes what is visible and consequently shapes societal norms and values. For instance,
Instagram's "like" feature doubles as an algorithmic exposure indicator and a social approval
mechanism, producing a feedback loop that affects individual behavior and broader societal
trends. The Instagram algorithm provides a strong illustration of the politics of aesthetics. It
selects content based on user interaction, affecting what is seen and what is not (Haßler, Kümpel,

2
et Keller 2023). According to criticism of this algorithmic curation, it reinforces preexisting
social and cultural biases, such as the underrepresentation of marginalized communities. This
links back to affect theory and ethical concerns regarding how algorithms influence aesthetic
judgements and emotional responses to "affect theory," which investigates how emotional
responses are created and commercialized in digital domains, are closely related (Tomkins
2014).

Another topic is the place of labor in digital media. According to the idea of "immaterial
labor," in the age of the digital revolution, work now also entails creating and exploiting
information and emotional experiences (Oksala 2016). Instagram influencers are the perfect
example of this type of labor since they devote time and money to producing visually appealing
content that sparks emotional responses, essentially turning their aesthetic preferences into work.
Rentier capitalism has its detractors, who contend that the phrase oversimplifies the complexity
of contemporary economic systems (Berry et MacFarlane 2022). Similar criticisms of the politics
of aesthetics and affect theory's abstraction and lack of empirical support have been levelled
against them (Bishop 2004). In addition, immaterial labor has come under fire for ignoring the
physical factors that support digital employment, such as the exploitation of gig workers who
support the online infrastructure (Qiu 2022).

Explanation of these Theories:

The theories of rentier capitalism, politics of aesthetics, affect theory, and immaterial
labor provide a fundamental framework for comprehending these dynamics. These theories
provide insight into the complex connections between digital media, economics, and culture.
These ideas are based on the idea that social media sites like Instagram are more than just neutral
venues for social interaction; rather, they are intricately woven into social, economic, and
cultural systems (Sun 2020).

Knowledge of the economic systems that support digital media begins with a knowledge of
rentier capitalism and platform capitalism. According to these views, digital platforms make
money not by manufacturing items but by managing and profiting from digital assets like user
content and data (Birch 2017; Srnicek 2017).This economic model significantly impacts the
politics of aesthetics since it affects what is valued or made visible on websites like Instagram.
As aesthetic governance, algorithms shape what is viewed and by whom (Massanari 2017;

3
Rohrich et al. 1998). These algorithms are created to maximize user engagement and hence
enhance ad income. Aesthetic evaluations frequently provoke emotional reactions, which in turn
impact behavior. As a result, the politics of aesthetics and affect theory are inextricably
intertwined. According to affect theory, these emotional reactions are socially and culturally
produced rather than just personal experiences (Tomkins 2014). A feedback loop that promotes
pre-existing cultural standards and financial incentives is produced by Instagram's "like" feature,
which functions as both an aesthetic evaluation and an affective reaction (Van Dijck 2011).

These theories enter the world of labor and production through immaterial labor. In the
digital age, labor encompasses not just the creation and manipulation of information but also the
creation and manipulation of emotional experiences (Oksala 2016). As it entails the creation of
content that is intended to be both aesthetically beautiful and emotionally engaging, this form of
labor is intricately linked to the politics of aesthetics and affect theory (Fingerhut et Prinz 2020).
These concepts confuse one another, in any case. For instance, researchers have argued that
rentier capitalism oversimplifies the intricacies of the digital economy, including the function of
user-generated content and the labor required to maintain digital platforms (Fumagalli et al.
2019). It has also been questioned if the politics of aesthetics and affect theory are applicable in
the context of digital labor due to their abstract nature and dearth of empirical support (Bishop
2004; Qiu 2022).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the digital world, exemplified by web pages like Instagram, is a

complicated space where the intersections of labor, economics, and aesthetics are intricate. This
study has examined these interconnections through the lenses of important academic theories like
rentier capitalism, the politics of aesthetics, affect theory and immaterial labor. Each of these
theories (Oksala 2016; Rancière 2004; Srnicek 2017; Tomkins 2014) raises significant issues and
ongoing discussions that need to be addressed while also providing insightful explanations of the
factors that influence how we interact with digital media. The essay has shown how Instagram is
a social networking site and a place where economic, aesthetic, and emotive dynamics are
intricately entwined. This feedback loop affects individual decisions and broader cultural trends
because algorithmic governance and human behavior impact these dynamics. In addition, the

4
idea of immaterial labor emphasizes how these connections are not only private but also kinds of
labor that support the digital economy.

The theories mentioned, however, also contradict one another, highlighting the
difficulties and limitations of comprehending digital platforms from a single academic
perspective. These theories, according to critics (Bishop 2004; Fumagalli et al. 2019; Qiu 2022),
may oversimplify or ignore crucial facets of digital interaction. They propose that alternative
theories should be more complex and grounded in empirical research. The ideas and frameworks
we use to understand digital platforms will change as they develop. With the goal of advancing
knowledge of the intricacies that define our digital lives, this paper serves as a springboard for
future investigation and discussion. The forces shaping the always-shifting digital environment
must be further examined as we navigate it, keeping in mind that our interactions with digital
media are not purely personal but firmly rooted in larger economic, cultural, and social systems.

5
References:

Berry, Christine, et Laurie MacFarlane. 2022. « The Conservatives' political economy:'State

rentier capitalism'or old wine in new bottles? » Renewal (0968252X) 30 (2).
Birch, Kean. 2017. « Rethinking value in the bio-economy: Finance, assetization, and the
management of value. » Science, Technology, & Human Values 42 (3): 460-90.
Bishop, Claire. 2004. « Antagonism and relational aesthetics. ».
Fingerhut, Joerg, et Jesse J Prinz. 2020. « Aesthetic emotions reconsidered. » The Monist 103
(2): 223-39.
Fumagalli, Andrea, Alfonso Giuliani, Stefano Lucarelli, et Carlo Vercellone. 2019. Cognitive
capitalism, welfare and labour: The commonfare hypothesis. Routledge.
Haßler, Jörg, Anna Sophie Kümpel, et Jessica Keller. 2023. « Instagram and political
campaigning in the 2017 German federal election. A quantitative content analysis of
German top politicians’ and parliamentary parties’ posts. » Information, Communication
& Society 26 (3): 530-50.
Massanari, Adrienne. 2017. « # Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm,
governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. » New media & society 19 (3): 329-
46.
Oksala, Johanna. 2016. « Affective labor and feminist politics. » Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society 41 (2): 281-303.
Qiu, Jack Linchuan. 2022. « Humanizing the posthuman: Digital labour, food delivery, and
openings for the new human during the pandemic. » International Journal of Cultural
Studies 25 (3-4): 445-61.
Rancière, Jacques. 2004. « The politics of aesthetics (G. Rockhill, Trans.). » London:
Continuum.
Rohrich, Rod J, Samuel J Beran, Richard J Restifo, et Steven E Copit. 1998. « Aesthetic
management of the breast following explantation: Evaluation and mastopexy options. »
Plastic and reconstructive surgery 101 (3): 827-37.

6
Sadowski, Jathan. 2020. « The internet of landlords: Digital platforms and new mechanisms of
rentier capitalism. » Antipode 52 (2): 562-80.
Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform Capitalism: Polity. : Cambridge.
Sun, Huatong. 2020. Global social media design: Bridging differences across cultures. Oxford
University Press.
Tomkins, Silvan S. 2014. « Affect theory. » Dans Approaches to emotion, 163-95. : Psychology
Press.
Van Dijck, José. 2011. « Flickr and the culture of connectivity: Sharing views, experiences,
memories. » Memory Studies 4 (4): 401-15.