This is a really interesting article about how some people managed to talk like adults about a piece of art they didn't like. Whether or not you like their solution: it appears they came to a solution that made a variety of people who disagreed but who all cared happy.
Basically, they solved this thorny public art problem by not allowing drive-by comments.
Without fail, people arrived at these events primed to make public comments, only to be surprised when they could not find a formal body to make a speech to, as there were only small-group conversations to join. They didn’t want to spend their time having to speak and listen at human scale. Indeed, listening, in small groups or one-on-one, over long periods, tried the patience of some participants. But it also bled out the cursed public discourse that had surrounded the issue for so long—exhausting those who had just one point to make and no interest in connecting or communicating, only in winning.They point out that the usual process--people lining up to give a speech to an assembly of other people (most of whom were also there to give speeches) was tried and, as usual, didn't work.
It's worthwhile thinking about how many online platforms are basically that: someone who will monologue but is not expected to engage getting access to a big audience of people who all want to engage or, themselves, monologue. Forums are like that, Twitter is like that. (People who write blogs but don't answer the comments are like that.)
And it's worth thinking about which kinds of people thrive in specifically those environments--people who have a deep belief in one-way communication and not being fact-checked. People who are twitter-famous or familiar forum-faces but not well-known as creators tend to be, basically, righteous trash.
So that's that.
----
Anybody curious about court news with Gencon--it's on appeal to the higher court now. If you didn't see that coming you haven't been paying attention.
----
No comments:
Post a Comment