CORRECTION: Comment below was anonymous. I misunderstood it to be from the TM Sisters, as their name was right beside the signature, CriticofCritics, and I reversed them. While it may be them writing in, they are entitled to the anonymous signature they (or somebody else really peeved) provided.
It is sad that Regina is an amateur at her craft. I can understand
trashing one artist but trashing all the artists? She’s a bore and does
not understand what’s happening in the art world today. Contemporary
art has been stuck for some time and the incoming paradigm change of
cross-pollinating game technology, the Hi-Tech, Human Interactive Media
with art is a breath of fresh air. Regina, you need to change your
profession. You want to be vogue and cool but you only show your
ignorance of what is happening in the big art centers of the world.
Hang it up!
Regina,
I’m curious.
When an individual posts something under a pseudonym–for whatever reason preferring anonymity–and the public does not have access to the true identity of this person, is it unethical if the blog administrator or steward of that information, in this case you, reveals them?
It struck me as odd that you called out this comment and ascribed it to a specific individual(s), and that you went so far as to create a new post of it, presumably so more people would see it.
Personally I’m not a fan of posting things anonymously, but that’s not the point. What I’m wondering is what the code of conduct is, what your responsibility is, and where the boundary of protection corrodes, and straight up did you do something unethical?
I’m not up on what the most recent opinion posting protection rights are in this day and age, but it sure seems f’in screwed up to me.
Yoko
Yoko. You’re assuming I knew this post in question was a prank. Wow. Obviously not.
Here’s my reasoning: When the subject of a review, especially a negative review, responds, I give that response a prominent place. If the response is not from the artists in question but is a prank, I have no way of knowing that.
Newspapers have people on staff who attempt to verify identities by checking phone numbers and addresses. A determined prankster could fool a newspaper checker, but it’s harder. I go on what seems reasonable, and the post in question seemed real. Had I doubted its veracity, I would have checked with you, the curator of the exhibit. I can’t double-check each response, and to double-check delays the response being posted, which, in the case of a real artist looking for his/her comment to appear, also is unfair.
The lack of knowing is just one of the reasons that many people who have blogs do not publish comments at all, such as Tyler Green (Modern Art Notes) and Lee Rosenbaum (Culture Grrl).
As a New Yorker cartoon pointed out, on the Internet, nobody knows if you’re a dog. Ultimately, the system works (after its own fashion) because it’s self-correcting. People write in to say, not by me, and the person with a blog either deletes the pretender posting or flags it.
So, is that what you’re saying, that you know the TM Sisters didn’t write their response? If so, I’ll flag it as inaccurate.
PS: To respond to a review using the name of the artists reviewed is not to pass under a pseudonym. It’s the blog version of identity theft, and those who engage in it are stone cold creeps.
Yoko. Aha. I FINALLY get this. I mistook the signature of an anonymous poster to be that of the TM Sisters. Sorry. Will correct.
Well, my goodness, what a knot of intentions and opinions. Regina, as you know I too found the evening’s performances a little challenging and rather opaque as to significance. I did hold out that there was something I was missing and would love a leg up to understand what I experienced that night. The performances seemed assaultive if not amazingly understated. Could it be that the Sister’s were holding back some secret that has played a roll in their success? Their interactive pieces might hold some clue but I remain somewhat clueless. I would hope someone could explain it all to me and I would say, Oh Yeah! I get it. (Has somebody posted an explanatory review somewhere?)
As idea of objecting to anonymous posters seems a kind of ridiculous conceit of the identified smug ones all comfy in their haughty show of identity. I must admit the anonymous poster can be a pain in the side and irritating to the max but the web and its blogs would be much less interesting without the unidentified speakers. The idea that there is some obligatory set of manners or protocols also seems to reach beyond the realpolitik of the web. That poster who knocked you certainly pounded away with an ugly stick but he’s not being so sophisticated, critically, as he’s giving away his need to attack without the very thing he seems to claim one should be if being critical. God rest his twisted soul. You have the right to object to some aspects of an art event, on occasion, just like Jen. I’m always amazed the art community doesn’t break out in more of this when it, most of the time, seems to be full of a well tempered decorum. Thanks to the attacking poster, we appear to have experienced some colorful deviance here. You and Yoko have raised thoughtful and interesting questions.
GFinholt
I couldn’t make it to the performance, so I have absolutely no way of knowing how well this post and subsequent comment actually summarize the evening. I do think that the tone taken by this particular commenter is not doing the TM Sisters any favors.
(I’m probably in the wrong field, too, since I’m temporarily overcome by incapacitating revulsion whenever someone equates good or interesting with “vogue,” “cool,” or “what is happening in the big art centers of the world.”)
That said, I definitely think the inclination to cross-pollinate visual arts venues with music and performance is a healthy one. I’m glad Yoko Ott seems to be moving things in this direction for the Hedreen.