POST-HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS · 006

When the People Take Over Culture’s Infrastructure

Terms marked with ? are explained without leaving the article.

Justin Baliukevičius' article "Popular art as the continuity and radicalization of popular culture” offers a look at culture not as a set of finished works, but as a movement: from system of consumption of manufactured goods, through its independent interpretation and reconstruction - to the creation of a new artistic form. This one the author considers growing dissatisfaction with culture to be the engine of the movement in the meanings offered by the industry.

It is an ambitious and productive attempt at redefining popular art. He does not here mean the art that is used by many people, and art that comes from the people themselves - from their everyday, social life experience and the need to create something that the existing cultural offer does not provide. In this way, the focus is shifted from the popularity of the work to its origin and of the creator's relationship with the cultural production system.

Analyzed text: Justinas Baliukevičius, "Popular art as a continuation of popular culture and radicalization", "Šiaurės Atėnai", 2026 July 10
Source: "Šiaurės Atėnai", 10.07.2026

From criticism of the culture industry to the active consumer

Baliukevičius begins with a classic critique of the culture industry. Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt, although differently, diagnosed cultures subversion: in the capitalist system, culture is increasingly produced, advertised, sold and consumed as a commodity. However, in their criticism, in the opinion of the author, the elitist assumption remains that high culture could preserve the autonomy that mass culture lacks. Modern reality no longer confirms such a comfortable boundary: the opera, the museum, and a pop concert operates in economic systems that require audience, advertising, tickets and revenue.

The most important twist occurs with the help of John Fiske's popular the concept of culture. The culture industry can produce a commodity, but it does cannot fully produce what this commodity will mean to people. viewer, the listener or reader is not an empty vessel. He brings his own experiences, social status, interests and conflicts, therefore can in the work to discover even such meanings as are contrary to the intentions of the producers or to the dominant discourse.

This insight allows us to distinguish mass culture from popular culture. Mass culture is a supply produced by the system, and popular culture is emergent people using that supply in their own way. A cultural commodity becomes a resource for new interpretations, identities, practices and relationships to create

The spectrum of dissatisfaction

The theoretical core of the article is the spectrum compiled by Baliukevičius. To its left is the ideal point of passive consumption: the system produces not only the product, but also the way of perceiving it, and the individual this way repeats. What follows is a different from the proposed meaning interpretation. Even further, the user begins to modify the object itself - rips or mends jeans, creates rework, writes fanfiction. Once another limit is crossed, the original work remains only a general form or a source of inspiration. Finally, the theoretical is reached poesis the point is to create a completely new form.

The author emphasizes that the energy of this movement is dissatisfaction. As long as it is enough for a person to read in his own way what the industry offers, he remains in the field of popular culture. Some gaps in other people's works it is no longer enough to express his experience, he begins to create on his own. If there is none a novel that corresponds to life, he writes his own; if there are no suitable ones clothes, sew them; if there is no music suitable for his daily life, her composes.

This trajectory is illustrated by the interpretations of the series, jeans modding, Madonna fan made clips, fanfiction, musician ibi's path from remakes to original compositions and Karolis Kinduris short film "Palanga". Examples are important in that it brings theory back into everyday cultural practice. The limit of creativity is here is not the preserve of academies, galleries, publishers or professionals alone guilds.

What is special about this model valuable

The first strength of the article is user rehabilitation. There is no man only an object of manipulation. Even using an industrial product, he can change its meaning, choose what is relevant for him, reject it imposed interpretation and participate in the creation of culture.

The second strength is the progressive and not binary nature of culture and art relationship model. There is no impassable border between "consume" and "create". Interpretation, use, modification, reworking and new work emergence forms a continuous field. This approach is more appropriate digital culture where memes, remixes, fan creations, open code tools and community projects constantly cross the ordinary the limits of the author, the audience and the work.

The third strength is highlighting the importance of publicity. Personal self-expression becomes a cultural act when it comes into relation with others. Publishing a work is not just advertising. It is an invitation to recognize common experience, extend the work, respond to it or challenge it.

The fourth strength is the question of who controls the means of creation. The power of the culture industry comes not only from the ability to offer meaning, but also from platforms, financing, distribution, visibility and legitimation control. When a hobbyist makes a movie on his phone and makes it public, he doesn't just produce content - he claims the right to be a creator without prior permission of the authority.

Where one axis is no longer enough

Baliukevich's spectrum is clear, but its clarity is within reach bringing the diversity of creativity to one axis - increasing dissatisfaction system. Not all creativity is born out of hostility or lack. It can rise out of admiration, play, curiosity, care, the desire to continue the tradition or act together. A folk song can change not because the previous one version no longer satisfies something, but because each performance is live an event The community can create not an alternative to the system, but a relationship, for which industrial categories are generally not the most important reference point.

Nor is it self-evident that increasing distance from the original form increases creative autonomy. A very original piece can be completely depending on the market expectations, but a slight modification of the existing piece can have radical social significance. Feminist Charlie's Angels rereading doesn't formally change the series, but it can significantly to change the viewer's relationship with the represented power. Hence the forms novelty, social impact and author autonomy are different dimensions; they should not be placed in a single line.

The problematic and strict separation of "system" and "people". The system is not homogeneous, and the people are not united. People can at one time be employees, developers, users, participants of platforms and small owners of organizations. In addition, the meaning born in the subordinate group is not necessarily liberating: communities can also reproduce prejudice, hatred and exclusion. The mere fact that meaning comes “from bottom' doesn't make it valuable.

It is especially important to challenge the idea that one has started making a living from creativity the artist almost inevitably loses the popular artist as a result status. A reward in itself is not an incorporation. If the developer cannot get income, independent creativity becomes a privilege of those who already have others resources. The essential question is not whether creativity is paid, but who determines it conditions: does the artist retain the right to decide, does the audience have real access, whether the value is shared fairly, whether the intermediary can change the rules unilaterally.

Therefore, popular art would be more accurately described not by non-commerciality, but the relationship of creative power: whose experience can become visible, who controls means of production and dissemination, who selects the works and to whom they go value created.

Post-hierarchical turning point: from the right to create to the right to shape the cultural field

Baliukevich's model frees the developer, but the infrastructure is in it remains largely a pre-existing system through which people uses They redesign goods or use platform factories means. A post-hierarchical step would be further: people should not only to use foreign infrastructure, but also to participate in determining its operation rules.

Today, it is technically easy to publish a piece, but to get noticed it's hard Platforms no longer prohibit creation; they rule hierarchically visibility. Recommendation algorithm, editorial selection, funding the commission or the platform's business model decides who will reach the audience. Therefore, the formal availability of creative means does not mean cultural availability distribution of power.

A post-hierarchical cultural infrastructure should function as a common field of cognition and decision. Its purpose would not be to decide by vote which piece is "good". Artistic value cannot be reduced to the majority taste, and unpopularity is sometimes an important feature of a new form. Collective intelligence is needed here for something else: to discover works whose not seen by market algorithms; connect them with the audiences they target resonates; open a reasoned field of different assessments; transparently decide how to distribute common cultural resources.

In such a system, evaluation would be multidimensional. It could be separately the novelty of the work, the mastery of performance, social relevance are measured, emotional resonance, ability to engage the community, and potential to be continued by others. These criteria would not be reduced to one universal score. In this way, different forms of value and disagreements would remain visible.

Accountable anonymity would be important: works or suggestions in the first stage of evaluation would be as little dependent on the author as possible status, institution prestige and number of followers. Participant influence would arise not from duties, but from the accuracy of previous assessments, the quality of arguments and of real contribution to a specific field of culture. It does not mean the author deletion - authorship must be protected and acknowledged. But she is should not predetermine whether a piece will be heard.

When deciding on shared resources - scholarships, spaces, archiving, dissemination or platform development, would be suitable for two stages solution. In the first stage, competent developers, researchers, curators and practitioners would refine reasoned alternatives. In the second stage, people who will be directly affected by the decision - creators, audiences, venues participants of a community or a specific cultural area, - chosen from of these alternatives. This would not eliminate expertise, but experts would would not even acquire the final authority to decide for others.

No "folk culture industry", but a cultural community

Baliukevičius provocatively talks about an alternative primary production source - "folk culture industry". But perhaps post-hierarchical the future does not need a second, competing industry. Industry, net owned by the people, can replicate the same production, ranking, the logic of focus and continuous growth.

A more precise direction would be a cultural community: common infrastructure, in which there are no creative means, knowledge and attention of audiences centrally managed, and the contributions of developers are recognized and rewarded. Such a community could rely on open licenses where the author wants to, but openness cannot mean expropriation of the free work of the creator. The possibility of redesign must be combined with acknowledgment of authorship and fair sharing of value.

The very understanding of popularity would also change here. There would be no more popularity neither mass consumption nor a spontaneous sign of resistance. He would mean the ability of the work to arouse other people's activity: interpretation, response, rebuilding, new community or collective action. The piece would be culturally alive not because of the number of views, but because of the meaningful ones it generates communications.

Conclusion: it is important not only who creates, but also how the culture decides

Justin Baliukevičius's article is important because of its artistic power returns to a person commonly referred to as a user or hobbyist. He shows that there is no insurmountable boundary between consumption and creation: each independent interpretation can become a re-creation, and a re-creation - the beginning of a new form.

However, it is not enough to simply move from user to developer. If the infrastructure of visibility, funding, distribution and recognition remains hierarchical, the new developer just enters the old field. The real one the redistribution of cultural power begins when people together can to shape not only the works but also the conditions in which the works appear, are accepted, appreciated and continued.

Post-hierarchical culture does not eliminate the individual author and you don't trust art majority voting. It creates an environment where no the center has no prior right to decide who can be a creator, however, every public decision about shared resources must be reasonable, transparent and accepted in the presence of those he will affect

Culture is not liberated when everyone can post work, and when no one alone controls the conditions on which it depends, whether the piece will be heard.

flowchart TD
    A["Industrial product"] --> B["Self-interpretation"]
    B --> C["Remaking and new creation"]
    C --> D["Accessible but alien infrastructure"]
    D --> E["General cultural infrastructure"]
    E --> F["The decision of creators and audiences"]
    classDef system fill:#f4f1ea,stroke:#6f6d66,color:#191916
    classDef transition fill:#e9e5dc,stroke:#6f6d66,color:#191916
    classDef shared fill:#f4f1ea,stroke:#a93b2b,color:#191916,stroke-width:2px
    class A,D system
    class B,C transition
    class E,F shared