Walter, what is the point...what the fuck are you talking about?
A comment in my post below about the acrimonious state of blog commenting got me to thinking more about the issue. One of the comment participants took my entry to be an attack on Ivan Lozano and his criticism of Brad Tucker's show at the Palace of Art. It wasn't. I actually supported the critical stance Ivan took towards the show, and the point I was trying to make was about the etiquette of blog commenting and the shrill tone added comments on art blogs often take. One of the ipso facto participants to Ivan's post goes so far as to attack his sexual orientation which I think is way beyond the realm of good taste, and as Ivan pointed out was a blatant ad hominem distraction. So, despite the irritation and resistance of polite blog participants everywhere, it seems virtually impossible to keep the dialogue following some posts to a civil tone - short of censoring ones own comment boards. There's always a few bitter apples who show up and ruin the spirit of dialogue for everyone. How do you keep things productive and amicable in an online discussion? I think this is an important issue to address considering how much art writing is now published online (and with the opportunity for everyone to share their two cents).
But beyond this question of manners, another good topic that came to mind concerns the appropriatness of critique in relationship to an artist's career. In the case of most emerging, underrepresented artists a public (published), rancorous rebuke is counterproductive to everyone. Small fish are easy catches and quicker to fry. There's no point in wailing on an artist who's never really been seen and therefore probably has no stature within the art community. It also makes the reviewer look like an ass. However, I'm not saying this is the approach Ivan took. In Tucker's case his CV is well established and as such, I think, opens his exhibition up to critical examiation for its shortcomings. Despite some opinions, I thought Lozano's take was pretty even for the format. Now, not everyone may agree with Ivan's assessment and that's the beauty of being able to post your own thoughts on the matter right below the article. But unless all participants remain polite and respectful of opinions, everyone is done a disservice.
I guess in the end the answer is that we all should meet in person more often, and maybe hit the bar where we can act like human beings again.
But beyond this question of manners, another good topic that came to mind concerns the appropriatness of critique in relationship to an artist's career. In the case of most emerging, underrepresented artists a public (published), rancorous rebuke is counterproductive to everyone. Small fish are easy catches and quicker to fry. There's no point in wailing on an artist who's never really been seen and therefore probably has no stature within the art community. It also makes the reviewer look like an ass. However, I'm not saying this is the approach Ivan took. In Tucker's case his CV is well established and as such, I think, opens his exhibition up to critical examiation for its shortcomings. Despite some opinions, I thought Lozano's take was pretty even for the format. Now, not everyone may agree with Ivan's assessment and that's the beauty of being able to post your own thoughts on the matter right below the article. But unless all participants remain polite and respectful of opinions, everyone is done a disservice.
I guess in the end the answer is that we all should meet in person more often, and maybe hit the bar where we can act like human beings again.
posted by Raymond at
3:05 PM
3 Comments:
Good question regarding keeping discussion amicable…i think i am okay with censoring ones own comments, especially if it for the benefit of the entire discussion and tone of the blog.
A little bird told me I might be interested in your blog and so I am paying attention. You seem like a nice guy, I’m glad you are making it out of the comfortable backwaters of Austin .
Normally I passively skim through the art writing in this town and elsewhere. I got involved in some commenting on Ivan’s blog when it seemed like an unfair, assuming attack on another nice guy.
My first comment there was made in the playful spirit of snappy repartee that Ivan’s flirty, sometimes catty tone often takes. It alluded to the iconic childhood experience of kids on a playground chasing each other around and sometimes slapping each other around because they are really just interested in each other. There was certainly no harm intended, and so I defended myself by clarifying my homophilia. After Ivan “let us in” with his show, I knew I was a pot that could call a kettle black. I really can't believe that any blogger would consider that censorable.
False accusation is so ugly, so I must clarify, there was no “attack [on] his sexual orientation,” simply a brother- in-arms recognition. It seems all too convenient that Ivan and his couple of friends (yourself included) thought it was “a blatant ad hominem distraction” because that is what you all have made it. Point those fingers and then everyone will look away from Ivan’s unfounded, hypocritical opinion, and just plain bad writing.
I thought I had successfully kissed and made up, but never underestimate a slow news day. If you have time, read that attack on Tucker again. I’ve never seen anything like it on Ivan’s blog. Have you? Anyway, it seems that Ivan’s nicened up a bit. It was probably Anjali Gupta’s feature and not some impolite commenter that made an impression.
You and your blog do seem very nice. I will peruse it every now and again. I’m already a fan of `Bout What I Sees, Art Fag City, Emvergeoning (Michelle is a great writer), Grammar.Police, Bear Parade, Eric Zimmerman (nice show at Art Palace), Modern Art Notes…
I’m sorry if my comments seemed not nice. I guess it’s sometimes difficult to hear ourselves as we sound to others. Thanks for the etiquette refresher illustration. Please share that anti-violence message, and/or this one, with your friends.
Well said, Payattention. I suppose what I meant was "leveraging" his sexual orientation to attack his position. My comment was an unfair mischaracterization. My apology, and thanks for the correction.
Post a Comment
<< Home