so I spent alot of time deciding just what rant I felt like posting today, and it finally came to me: rating systems. Every now and then after watching a Youtube video I scroll down to see the comments. Pretty often if a user gets flamed, someone or other speaks up for them saying something along the lines of "you know, you didn't have to watch it." Sure, I'm a fan of the whole if-you-don't-have-something-nice-to-say-don't-say-anything-at-all philosophy, but the fact of the matter is that if you post something on Youtube, you are placing your work in a very public forum where it may become highly visible; all work on Youtube is subject to judgement and criticism. This should be fairly obvious, given that there is even a 5-star rating system in place, and posters even have the option to TURN OFF RATINGS ON THEIR POSTS!
One of the things I LOVE about the internet is how it has become a mechanism for self-publishment. I support a slew of musicians who distribute primarily online and are basically self-produced, I have a collection of video-comedy sources I frequent (see below), and I know plenty of people who publish poetry and prose online as well. I like to think that individuals who use the internet as a medium for expression aren't doing it in the hopes of categorically recieving positive feedback. It's one thing to give a paper to a friend and ask them what they think (honestly, if they're a good friend I'd hope they'd be honest...I only mention this because I've noticed livejournal often looks like a support group in the comments/replies section of posts), but if you are going to present your work to an incalculable population of strangers, you ought to expect it will be criticized. And if you are a viewer who appreciates work that is being criticized, you would be doing the artist a service by defending them in a more substantial manner than "if you don't like it, don't watch it."
I remmeber there was this one forum I was a member of that was, well....packed with "new agers" to put it lightly. I'm premed, so I gave them a lot of slack and put up with them for the most part. One day, someone came in talking about 12 stranded DNA. now, anyone who has taken high school chemistry ought to know this is absolutely impossible, and having taken much higher levels of chemistry and biology I can give very articulate reasons why. I decided this was just to tripped out to pass, and decided to correct the misinformation with a rather condemning reply, and was so anoyed with the bad science presented that I gave the poster "-1 karma," the karma system being a means by which posters could be rewarded or punished for their posts.
Apparently, although there was a negative karma button clearly available to me, I was the first person in approximately the 3 year history of this forum to do such an offensive thing. A huge argument broke out, ending with the abolition of the negative karma button, and a new convetion of tossing around karma points for no particular reason to the result that the mroe often you posted the more karma you got, regardless of the quality of the post.
The point of the story is that I feel that many individuals seem to have the impression that unconditional support is necessary for the existence of community and interpersonal relationships. But I mean, given the fact that most material placed online--be it blog post or video--is subject to being viewed by totally strangers, I think people ought to expect a little criticism, and constructive or not be capable of dealing with it.
there are trolls out there who enjoy starting riots. There are jerks out there who will be outright mean even if it's simply not their cup of tea but may be good anyway. And there are even a few people out there who enjoy giving constructive criticism. But if you are going to put something out there for the world to see, you shouldn't expect hugs all around.
I suppose that in context, it's not the posters of the material that are saying "dont like? don't post!" but other viewers. perhaps these are people who have been subject to critism and are trying to protect others, or perhaps they are members of lovey-duvey communities like the one I described who think the whole internet could and should be one big love-fest; maybe they're both. I've never taken psych, i'm jsut a philosopher. Whatever their reasons, these people need to reconcile the fact that although the internet operates and appears as though it were its own realm/dimension/enviornment/world whatever metaphysical term you want to throw out there (and it may well be that), the internet does still exist within the
real world, and is inhabited by the same
real people you find on the street.
We ought to expect the same kind of criticism online that we would recieve from strangers on the subway, because that is EXACTLY who the audience is. Moreover, due to the degree of anonymity available oinline, we should perhaps expect HARSHER criticism online than in the real world, yet the internet is still flooded with drek. sure, deviantart has tons of incredible art on it, but it also has lots of pedestrian stuff. we've all seen the kind of trash that is the majority of youtube. Most online literature sites are just mechanisms for high school students to say they've been published and have no review process for accepting material.
So why do these support groups form? it's obvious really: the internet is packed with amateurs. that's ok; that's the point. the amateurs support each other and that's fine. it's great when small artistic communities form around which these people can thrive in their self-expression, like groups of mutually subscribed directors on youtube or deviantart-ists who keep up with each others work like bloggers, and of course let's not forget the livejournal communities. but many of these smaller supportive communities exist within more public frameworks, and certainly even the more private ones are still open to being stumbled upon by the occasional kid who just doesn't get it.
so what's the point? if you're going to express yourself through a medium as visible as most websites are, be ready for criticism and keep a stiff upper lip. keep in mind, are you making your work for yourself or for your audience? Do you just like doing what you want to do or do you want to get better at it? considerations like these should determine to what degree criticism effects posters, and under no circumstances should people expect to be necessarily well recieved or liked and similarly if you encounter someones work who is being heavily criticized, you shouldn't feel the need to defend them because it's unlikely to change anything.
If you're going to post online, fine, but expect some bad reviews. If you're going to browse online, fine, but you're not the fucking lorax and these trees can speak for themselves.
this post is more than long enough. as a reward for reading through it (which you probably didn't), here's a collection of what I consider to be some high quality sources of comedic videos online:
Youtube users who produce some solid sketch comedy:
-brookers
-leftofcentercomedy
Online "TV stations" whose series compete monthly for syndication, keeping the quality surprisingly high. you remember that family guy joke where the dud ein the red wig kicks peter in the nuts and then points to a hidden camera and says "you jsut got kicked in the nuts" like it's the name of a TV show? that's from channel101. if you want to participate ina live screening, the sites are LA and NY based respectively
www.channel101.comwww.channel102.net
The bar has been set.
