Internet has broken that vertical communication. The ultra-rational philosopher Mr. Satan[4]<\/sup><\/a> establishes three types of content creators on the Internet: the professional<\/em>, who gets a retribution for doing what they do; the social<\/em>, whose only purpose is communication with friends, relatives or larger groups that are kept together by personal affinity ties based on common tastes; and the anonymous<\/em>, moved by a much simpler desire than to seek honours, namely: the joy that the execution<\/em> of their project <\/em>procures, the transformation of their<\/em> idea in a reality<\/em> conditioned by their own efforts. Usually, because of that anonymity, this character can afford acting like a cultural sniper, a deformer of the work of others<\/em>, or they can simply afford \u201ctrolling\u201d, for which they would have gone to prison in other circumstances.<\/p>\n The professional creator is, in essence, the prolongation of the vertical communication of the mass media on the internet. But what\u2019s authentic to the Internet, Mr. Satan says, is the anonymous creator, who develops in forums or groups created by themselves or other people, and generates, together with other anonymous creators, a cycle of \u201cdegeneration\u201d and \u201cmeta-ironisation\u201d of the ironic memes themselves or humoristic artifacts. That is to say, the LOL.<\/p>\n The novelty that ICTs have introduced is what we know as the fourth ritual function of the work of art:<\/em>[5]<\/strong><\/sup><\/em><\/a> letting the People express, identify and relate themselves through their own creations. The interaction between the creator and the public is usually from equal to equal, it is personal and reciprocal through likes, shares, comments and remakes. Before the Internet, the symbol remained unchanged through time, its virality only implied an extension in the number of people who knew it. At the same time, they were unidirectional: a person watched a Steven Spielberg film and they may have liked it or not, but couldn\u2019t respond to him making another film or sending him a peak-three<\/em>. Today, a user sees a meme and can alter, share, comment or like it at their discretion, as long as the algorithm has shown it to them before.<\/p>\n As Mr. Satan suggests, the anonymous creator seems to worship a fetish-meme that feeds on their work to perfect itself, adding layers and layers of irony behind it. The meme gains power, and what was only a funny photograph, turns into thousands of photomontages, what was a simple meme is broken down into thousands of figures and specific contents, and what was nothing but a cultural trope, <\/em>like Aqu\u00ed no hay quien viva<\/em> or any other piece of the classical repertoire, is transformed into the \u201cgenerative principle\u201d of shitposting and dank memes[6]<\/strong><\/sup><\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n The anonymous creator is by definition ironic, since he responds and questions something that already exists. They accelerate then the normal cycle of symbols, memes and humour. They represent the unleashed deconstructive energy of the People, that finally has the ability to respond \u2014to ironise\u2014 the messages of the plutocracy. But the People are only creative by pure statistic given their inherent massiveness: the mass is necessary in order for something to become viral, but it is unaesthetic <\/em>by nature, that is to say, it lacks aesthetic sense. This is evidenced by the generalised indifference towards the height to width ratio in the images they restructure on Word or the random typefaces in onomastic signs in their local businesses. The mass doesn\u2019t count with the multidisciplinary creative production team of a publicity agency, but it is rather composed by millions of individuals that interpret reality in a jumbled way. The People make compositions with the tools they have at hand, in their own pulsion of communication, without abiding to the strict canons of design, orthography or etiquette. In that sense, aesthetic importance in vertical communication ends up getting blurred by the horizontal one: it is now the affinity of the receiver with the content that defines the quality of the content.<\/p>\n The consecutive ironic creations and recreations on the Internet could be broken down around their form of irony[7]<\/sup><\/a>and their aesthetic intention, understanding this as their relationship with the standards of design, orthography, quantity and quality of the text, etc: they can be persecuted, ironically subverted or irrelevant. In this classification we could subdivide the four naive forms in post-art<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> or content that responds to a reality, like a political or social situation; and the four cynic ones in meta-art<\/em>, which respond to a previous irony.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a-desk.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/5ddebd6e495a2.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n