Oct. 29, 2009 at 9:53am with 4 notes
Anatomy of a debate

I’ve commented on internet debates before, but here is a good opportunity to do it again.

So here we have an article that talks about the internet, images and Flickr, embracing and endorsing all of it. I then take that article, and I talk about mostly the last paragraph in it, to discuss whether or not there really should be such a schism between “high art” and the rest; and as a final thought, right at the end I note that a) Flickr is being taken seriously by the art world and b) those people who don’t use Flickr might simply looking for something different (which is like saying that people who don’t eat chocolate might instead be looking for hard candy). hyperallergic, an art critic in NY, then comments on my little article, saying that he uses Flickr “ALL THE TIME”, and claiming that “the main thing that makes Flickr unattractive is that it is dominated by ad-educated aesthetic”.

You’d imagine that as a Flickrite you’d be pretty chuffed, right? Three comments about Flickr, all of them pointing out that it’s being used and that it’s useful, one - the critic - having some issues with the aesthetic, but one could argue about that, couldn’t one? All in all, pretty good.

Well, not so. lapuravidagallery immediately attacks all of this, noting that he is “constantly amazed that intelligent people make such flippant comments without really understanding the variety of communities that are using Flickr.”

Which, taken at face value, means that the first three articles were all wrong, since they contain “flippant comments”. So even though people write they are taking Flickr seriously, that’s just a “flippant comment”. And then it goes downhill fast, with - last time I looked - the final complaint being that “I think I was rather straightforward in my response, merely making the point that there is this tendency to stereotype Flickr as nothing but kittens, sunsets, and chipmunks.”

The “rather straightforward” point that “there is this tendency to stereotype Flickr as nothing but kittens, sunsets, and chipmunks” of course never happened in the three articles that caused all of this. In fact, it was the exact opposite (but apparently, artists like Penelope Umbrico or Joachim Schmid are not worthwhile talking about - well, if that isn’t just the same form of elitism that is usually leveled at the “fine art” community I don’t know what it is).

But this is a “wonderful” example of how so many “debates” on the internet evolve, and as someone who is interested in talking about photography online, it’s actually pretty disheartening. Why should anyone bother trying to engage with Flickr, if regardless of what is written it is automatically taken as stereotyping “Flickr as nothing but kittens, sunsets, and chipmunks” - even if in reality the exact opposite is happening?

Of course, this all is not just about Flickr - just look at the debate about what Chris Anderson said in this “debate” over at Lightstalkers! It makes you wonder how many people actually read what Chris said before responding!

This is not to say that all debates online follow this pattern, but as far as I can tell, many do. And that’s just really, really sad.

PS: My reaction to this phenomenon has been (partly was) to a) have no comments on my blog and to b) refrain from commenting anywhere. If I have something to say I’ll write a blog post or send an email. Probably the best reaction to these Flickr reactions would have been to simply ignore them - but this is something I meant to write about for a long time. I have no illusions as to what it might achieve (or lead to), though.

  1. photographsonthebrain reblogged this from conscientious and added:
    a) I wasn’t debating. I was commenting...internet. It’s pretty standard. b) “Why should...
  2. conscientious posted this