#if you say people should correct original content you must ask why you feel entitled to see it

[the-owl-tree]

wc fandom is lacking in a lot of ways but i gotta say the lack of acceptance of more fun out there au’s kills me. in other fandoms people will be like what if bert and ernie were a mermaid and a pirate and they traveled the world together and everyone’s like omg what if they were a mermaid and a pirate meanwhile someone makes a slightly more fantastical au here and that confessions blog gets like 10 asks about how people should just make their own original stuff

like

[ofmermaidstories]

I totally agree with you on not liking the current, "you must reblog or don't read it" mentality. While it's great to support fanfic writers if you're comfortable with it, there are a lot of reasons why someone may not feel comfortable reblogging a particular fic (for me personally my social anxiety sometimes gets the best of me and I simply cannot handle the idea of being perceived). I think the problem comes when people don't interact with fics and then start to ask for more content from the author (which I suspect is only a few people but it's enough to give some writers a really bad impression). I used to write for a very small fandom and even I had several experiences of people asking for part 2s or updates when the original fic had very little interaction and I was most definitely not a request blog. I've personally never written fanfiction to get comments but stuff like that made me feel used and I even had one interaction that toed the line of emotional blackmail and put me off writing for that fandom altogether so I can definitely see why some authors end up so jaded that they block anyone who doesn't interact positively (even if it's not something I really agree with). So yeah, I really don't think there's anything wrong with genuine lurkers but I fear sadly they've been given a bad name by the few people who do treat fanfic authors as content machines.

Anyway, I hope I haven't rambled too much and that you're having a good day Merms!

Oh yeah, absolutely!!! Like, true entitlement is such a problem that genuine lurkers are getting murked for; which is unfair because it makes a scapegoat out of them and doesn’t solve the real problem at all. And I say “true entitlement” because there’s a difference between a comment that’s like, “will there be a part 2? 🥺” and “part 2” LOL, which is my personal pet peeve, like—what happened to hi?? hello??? how are you??? 💀 I’m not a chat AI, you don’t get to input demands. 🤖📖🚫

Idk—I try not to be mean about even that, tho, because I suspect a lot of this behaviour is indicative of younger readers, but then it just circles back to the problem of like, how do we correct it on a community-wide scale? Because sure, entitlement like that might be coming from a younger reader, but it might just as easily be coming from an asshole LMAO. The only “quick” solution that I can see for it is directly addressing it when it happens. 🥺 And again I wanna emphasise that there’s a clear difference between a genuine enquiry and a throwaway demand!! Like, personally, I don’t mind people asking when I might update or whatnot, because I don’t hold myself to a schedule and my updates are haphazard. But if you’re a more structured and dependable writer (like andypants, for example!) then maybe it’s a different story idk idk. It’s literally case-by-case—which is how it should be, because we’re all individual people writing different things.

I’m sorry your other fandom experience was kinda soured for you though, Anon. 🥺 I would feel used too! I’ve actually come to really dislike writing generic, non-bigger-fic related drabbles because they’re always the pieces that attract the worst of the entitlement. 💀 I say that like it’s a plague of demands lmfao, it’s not, but it happens often enough that it’s noticeable—and I guess it’s just the nature of them being easily digestible without needing like 100k+ of backstory to get into it, but….. idk idk. It’s startling! 😦 And I think the only action we can take that’s even close to a solution is just gently addressing it whenever it pops up. 😔 Or blocking ig if that’s how u roll, LOL.

[fytheuntamed]

Do you have any thoughts on why the novel might be so popular among lgbt people despite (sometimes quite obviously) being written by a straight women for straight women. I think this is quite evident in for example the sex scenes

Why do I think the novel is so popular amongst LGBTQ+ people despite being written by a straight woman for straight women? Simple! It’s a good story and the characters are complex and intriguing. No piece of media is ever perfect, so it simply comes down to whether an individual feels the positive aspects of the media outweigh the negative aspects of the media. Are there problematic aspects within the novel? Of course! But that doesn’t mean the novel as a whole should be disregarded. You can consume media while still being critical of it, just like you can like a character while acknowledging that they’re not a good person. LGBTQ+ people, like everyone else, value a good story and interesting characters, so even if there are aspects of the story that we dislike, we may still stick around if we think it’s worth it! Also, I think there’s a shortage of stories like “Mo Dao Zu Shi” where you have LGBTQ+ characters whose sexuality isn’t the focus of the story. Yes, Wangxian are soulmates and very much in love, but that isn’t the whole point. You have a delightful bundle of politics, magic, familial ties, concepts of right and wrong, mystery, etc etc that also features a beautiful love story between two men. I guess my point is, LGBTQ+ people are flawed just like everyone else and sometimes we consume content even if we don’t agree with every part of it.

I’ve avoided getting involved in any discourse surrounding the various versions of MDZS because I wanted to keep this blog drama free, however I would like to take this chance to offer my own thoughts on the “problematic” aspects of the novel. Before I get into it, I just want to make three things clear: 1) I’m white, 2) I’m not mlm, I’m a lesbian, and 3) I’ve only read the second half of the novel and honestly I can’t remember too much of the specifics. The relevance of my opinion on the matter, therefore, is limited and my words should be read with this fact in mind. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts and feelings on this matter, so do feel free to either leave a comment or reblog and add your two-cents. All I ask is that we keep it respectful so this can continue to be an enjoyable space for all fans.

I’ve been going through the untamed’s tumblr tag daily since the start of this blog in August 2019, so I’ve seen the whole spectrum of opinions on this matter. Some people feel very strongly that some of the ways in which MXTX writes particular aspects of the novel are “problematic,” some people are indifferent, and others feel that criticism of MXTX’s writing comes from a lack of knowledge of Chinese culture (particularly LGBTQ+ Chinese culture). (I remember seeing a post touching upon this last matter, but I didn’t save it, so unfortunately I can’t link it.)

I think the two most common criticisms of the novel that I have come across pertain to matters of consent and the imposing of heteronormative concepts onto Wangxian. Again, I want to stress that I haven’t read the novel in its entirety and my memory of it is foggy. Talking about consent first, some felt the scene in the novel where LWJ kisses an unexpecting blindfolded WWX was a big no no, while others thought it was a very sweet, romantic scene. (To give context for those who have only seen the drama, this scene would have been placed in episode 25 had they included it). For this matter, I’m of the belief that consent is a must. Regardless of whether WWX enjoyed the kiss, the fact stands that no one is entitled to another’s body, and this is why consent is, in my eyes, non-negotiable. For those who have no problem with this scene, I do think it is worth considering how you would feel about this scene had it involved, say, Jin Zixuan kissing a blindfolded Jiang Yanli. If that had been the case, I do think the majority of readers would have found the scene in poor taste (I could be wrong, though!). I will say that the trope of the forceful kiss is extremely common and can be found in every genre; it’s definitely not restricted to LGBTQ+ couples. For the aforementioned reason, I don’t like the forceful kiss scenario irregardless of the genders of the people involved. I do think writing such scenes for LGBTQ+ couples in particular can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, particularly that LGBTQ+ people have no respect for personal boundaries and can’t control their physical desires. I think the situation is doubly bad if the person who is being kissed is “not yet gay,” because again, it perpetuates the idea of the big bad gay person and the innocent “straight” person who is at the whims of said big bad gay.

Moving on to WWX and LWJ’s sex life, I have seen multiple people in the tag mentioning WWX having a “rape kink” and their discomfort with this fact. Logically, I understand that we are all allowed, as human beings with different tastes and preferences, to enjoy the things that bring us pleasure (excluding certain obvious things). That being said, I do not personally enjoy rape fantasies in my media and try to stay far away from it. As I mentioned, we are all welcome to our own tastes and preferences, but I do think it is important that we realize that we are all also the product of our environments. Things, including kinks, do not exist in vacuums, and therefore they must arise as a result of some mixture of external and internal forces. Does MXTX giving WWX a rape kink automatically make her demon spawn? Not really. Does MXTX giving WWX a rape kink add anything to his character or the story? Also not really. All this being said, I do think LGBTQ+ media is oversaturated with consent issues and I’d personally like to see this come to an end, because once again, it perpetuates harmful stereotypes that do have a real impact on LGBTQ+ individuals.

As for the imposing of heteronormative concepts onto Wangxian, I think the biggest complaint I’ve seen is about WWX being referred to as the “mom” or the “wife” within the Wangxian couple. I would like to state here that this may be a situation in which cultural differences come into play. Additionally, because the novel is not originally written in English, it may be a case of telephone in which the true meaning becomes distorted as it is translated from one language to another and then to another and so on and so forth. Therefore, I am going to proceed with my thoughts on the matter in a more generalized way. For me, this is a big pet peeve of mine, to the point where I will not reblog content that refers to any of the male characters as “mom” or “wife.” My reasoning is simple: WWX is a man, so he would be someone’s “dad” or “husband,” not their “mom” or “wife.” I know from first-hand experience that non-LGBTQ+ people will often try to place a gay couple within a heterosexual context to make it easier for them to process how two women or two men could be together. I understand the reasoning behind this way of thinking, but that does not mean this way of thinking should be encouraged. It’s bad enough that non-LGBTQ+ couples are ensnared in an endless maze of gendered ways of being and thinking - let’s not force that on LGBTQ+ couples as well. My other issue is that the words “mom” and “wife” not only have gendered connotations, but they have implicit sexual connotations as well. In this context, “mom” and “wife” are just another way of saying “bottom.” Just think about it; nobody’s out there calling LWJ “mom” or “wife.” The whole idea of “top” and “bottom” in gay media is so……..it’s almost like an obsession? And for those of you who may be thinking it’s not that deep and has no bearing on real life….I really wish that were true. Go look at the comments section of any gay couple’s youtube video and you will invariably find someone asking who is the top and who is the bottom. That’s invasive as fuck, y’all, and you don’t see that shit on straight couple’s videos (again, because the assumption is that women are always in the submissive, therefore there’s no need to ask because it’s assumed the answer will always be that the woman “bottoms” and the man “tops”). All this being said, I can only speak about this matter from my viewpoint as a lesbian. If one day I were to get married, I wouldn’t want people referring to my wife as my “husband,” because the whole point is that we’re both the wife! I know there isn’t one rule/mindset that applies to all gay people, so I would love to hear others’ feelings on this matter.

Finally, I would also like to briefly touch upon Mo Xuanyu, who we don’t really get to see in the drama. I don’t know whether LWJ or WWX ever explicitly state their sexualities or which gender(s) they’re attracted to, but I’m pretty sure Mo Xuanyu is explicitly stated to be strictly into men (please correct me if I’m wrong!). I do wonder what MXTX’s intentions were (if there were any) when she decided to make Mo Xuanyu gay, because what I’ve grasped of his characterization is that he is written similarly to other gay male characters that give the impression they were created by checking off a list of every popular stereotype about gay men. I guess I’m just curious, as someone who knows very little about Mo Xuanyu, how others felt about his character in terms of complexity and stereotypes.

If you took the time to read all this, thank you! Let me know your thoughts~

[a-student-out-of-time]

(Mod, can this anon just say I really appreciate how much self-control you have? When that Haiji defender showed up on your blog, you just said "get off my blog". This anon really appreciates how you didn't scream at them, accuse the person of secretly being a pedophile themself, tell them to kill themself or to choke on broken glass, encourage your followers to harass Haiji fans, etc. Today's generation of pop-culture-fandom could learn from your example.)

//Now that you bring this up, if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to talk for a bit about fandom toxicity.

//There is, in a way, a feeling of entitlement and ownership when it comes to characters or properties. That, because these things hold a special place in our hearts, that they belong to us and that our interpretation of them is the correct one and that anyone who disagrees is wrong.

//So when there comes creative decisions or opinions made by others with those properties, even ones by the actual creator of the work, that don’t match up to our own, there can come a feeling that these are a direct attack against us as well. With that comes a lot of the worst parts of fan culture: harassment, insults, bullying, threats, and even actual attacks on these people.

//But the truth is, these people were probably just expressing their feelings and emotions about the same work, because they enjoy it too. They were never trying to directly or indirectly attack you, they just simply had a different opinion. It’s important to keep that in mind: the people you talk to online are human beings with thoughts and feelings of their own, and those feelings are rarely going to be the exact same as yours.

//An unfortunate part of the problem are the inherent psychological biases that we all have, and confirmation bias especially. Where we’ll focus on information we agree with (even if it’s factually wrong) and ignore anything that conflicts with that (even if it’s factually correct). This goes beyond just fandom, but I’m going to stay on topic.

//There is not a single human being at any point in history who hasn’t been guilty of these biases. You, me, everyone you’ve ever met, we’ve all done it at one point or another. The issue is when these biases get us to leap toward intolerant conclusions about those whose viewpoints we disagree with. “You don’t have the same opinion as me, so you must be stupid/evil/bigoted/brainwashed/etc.”

//It can be so easy to draw those conclusions about people, especially when the arguments aren’t well-structured and you’re in the heat of the moment. But let’s be real: we’re never all going to 100% agree on everything. And that’s okay. Hell, if we did, that sounds more like a dystopian nightmare scenario where free thinking has been suppressed.

//And thinking is an activity I’ve always encouraged. Toxicity is ultimately at odds with critical thinking, where any dissenting opinion is hunted down and suppressed and anyone who speaks up is bullied into silence. That is not what my blogs are about. It does kinda make me sad that I’m being praised for not being a toxic asshole, because I don’t really feel like that’s praiseworthy. I want that to be a normal thing.

//Here’s an experiment: take your favorite DR character and ask yourself why you like them. What is it about them that drew you to them? Their personality? Their backstory? Their role in the narrative of whichever game they were in? When you have those reasons in mind, consider the following: what about this character is flawed? What about them is inherently dark or troubling? Why might someone else dislike them?

//And then work backwards from there: take your least favorite DR character and ask yourself why you dislike them. Then find all the ways why someone else might like them without diving straight into intolerant conclusions. Look past the surface and dig a bit deeper to see what exactly makes them tick.

//That’s not me asking for essays, that’s something I want you all to consider for yourselves.

//I’ll be the first to admit I really disliked Junko. I didn’t consider her all that interesting of a character or a villain, and she just cames off as very annoying and overblown to me. I considered everything that she sets in motion to be far more interesting. 

//I have, however, seen a lot analyses and in-depth looks at her as a character and after going through those, I came away with a lot of insights I didn’t even consider before. My opinion hasn’t changed too much, but I can definitely see (DR3 notwithstanding) all the way she can and does make for a interesting villain.

//So the takeaway is, even if you don’t end up changing your opinion, you can at least say “I still disagree, but I’ve gained some perspective into why someone would feel this way and I’m better for it.” Critical thinking does not mean you have to give up your opinions, and there does exists a very wide middle ground between total agreement and toxic harassment.

//But critical thinking is at odds with the idea that it’s best to retcon, ignore, or fabricate details of canon that we disagree with to justify those opinions. This is why I got so mad at the anon who claimed Haiji was talking about fictional underage girls, something that is not at all substantiated by evidence in the game. You can’t simply ignore these details because you don’t like them.

//Critical thinking is about being able to either say, “Okay, I fully acknowledge that these details about this character I like are problematic and I understand why it might upset people, but they’re not the sole or central reason why I like this character”, or “Okay, after careful analysis, maybe I was wrong about what I originally thought about them.”

//Me personally, I look at these details and ask “Okay, but how can we build off of this? Can we tell a new story with it?” For example, while SDRA2 Chapter 0 left a bad taste in most everyone’s mouths, I didn’t want to just retcon it. Instead,  thought Kokoro being regretful over her actions and wanting to reconnect with her daughter would make for a very interesting story.

//But the most important part of this that I’d want anyone to take away is that it’s important to listen to others and consider their viewpoints as well, and again without immediately jumping toward conclusions and talking over them before they make their case. Listen to people, ask them questions, and remember that on the other end of the conversation is another human being with thoughts and feelings of their own.

//Now, there is that invisible fear that “understand that others have different opinions” is shorthand for “just accept that some people are into r*pe/inc*st/p*dophilia and let them make content of it.” I promise you that is not at all what I’m suggesting here. I hope my previous angry rant about Haiji cemented that fact.

//What I am saying is that we need to be acutely aware of both the thoughts and feelings of others and those of ourselves. That it’ll be better for us as well as others to apply critical thinking and careful insight into our opinions, not taking them as inherent fact simply because we hold them, and understand that others will not always enjoy the same content the same way we do.

//And most importantly, being able to separate those who are willing to listen vs. those who’ll prefer to stay toxic, bitter, and unmoving is a very important skill to learn. There is no shame in withdrawing yourself from any sort of talk with a person who upsets people for fun, and it will be better for your health in the long run.

//Finally, let’s be real, what’s gained from arguing with people online? People who you never have and probably never will meet? Not much. But if someone is not going to budge and only wants to share their toxicity with the world, it’s better for you to simply walk away, block them, cut yourself off, and move on. Their toxicity is their deal, and it doesn’t have to be yours.

//But I also think there are people who are willing to listen, who may simply not know that they’re engaging in things that are hurtful or toxic. And some frank but kind insight as to why can change their opinions. A willingness to listen, not to just defend their position, is what’s important.

//I’ll be completely honest here and say I was in that position once. I’ve said and thought some awful things before, and I feel so fortunate that I met the right people who stopped me from going down that road before I got too far. Not with hostility or arguments, but honest and kind discussions and insights.

//As fans and as people in general, we can, should, and need to be better. That’s why I don’t want my space to be full of hate and bullying, but just storytelling and creative discussions, where people are welcome to express their opinions, and even if we disagree, that’s alright. We’ve at least gained some insight into each others’ views ^^

//Compassion and wisdom are what I consider the most important virtues, and being more critical of ourselves is how I think we can solve the issue of fandom toxicity. That’s what I’ve tried to apply here. My goal is just to tell a good story for you all to enjoy here, and I appreciate each and every one of you who’ve followed, liked, reblogged, or even just considered any of my posts worthwhile to read

//And if you made it all the way through this, I hope you’ll consider everything I’ve said here as well. You can’t change every single toxic person out there, but you can change yourself for the better and encourage others to do the same.

[peachdoxie]

I get where you’re coming from on the likes/reblogs post but also you aren’t really a content creator (correct me if I’m wrong) so this issue doesn’t effect you as much? I don’t think it’s wrong to ask people to think about how we as a community interact with and support artists on tumblr and to consider if there’s anything else we could be doing. It’s really hard to make it as an independent artist and I don’t think it’s wrong for artists to advocate for themselves

It's not an issue of content creators advocating for themselves and asking people to reblog their posts. I take issue when they basically guilt trip people into reblogging posts by saying things like "We're doing this for free. The least you can do is reblog our content." or "Tumblr has moved from a culture of sharing to a culture of consumption." or "People aren't reblogging original content anymore which is why tumblr is dying."

The first statement is technically true in that engaging with content encourages creators to produce more, but so often the posts I see act entitled about it, that if I see something I like I should automatically reblog it. No. There are any number of reasons I or anyone doesn't want to reblog something, and they're all completely valid.

The latter two statements are complete bullshit. Consumption culture has always been part of the internet. Having the ability to share something doesn't change that. We consume so much content every day on the internet and it is literally impossible to share everything we like. Tumblr has a post limit. Twitter has a post limit. I'm not certain if Facebook does, and to my knowledge Instagram doesn't, but there are other restrictions in place for posting activity on various sites. It's far easier and economical to like posts than it is to share them.

As for "tumblr is dying," I've seen this repeated for at least half a decade, and it's still debatable whether or not that's true, or even what "dying" means. And even if tumblr is "dying," I doubt much of that has to do with people not reblogging content so much as people leaving due to shitty policies implemented by the staff or people spending more time on other, newer websites that offer different styles of interaction. Like, maybe people not reblogging things is a small part of it. But the posts I'm arguing against often act like users not reblogging things is entirely due to the users being only about consumption and not about sharing, which is a take that entirely lacks a nuanced perspective on what impacts people's reblogging choices.

And also, the popularity of different websites waxes and wanes. There's a limit to how popular a website can get before something changes and users navigate to somewhere else. Yeah, those of us who like tumblr want it to stay popular and functional, but how many other social media sites popular for content creation with fair lack of corporate oversight have "died" in the last thirty years? A lot of them. That's just how the internet works, whether we like it or not.

My exasperation with those posts are that other people are trying to dictate how I and others cultivate our tumblr experience, which is very antithetical to my personal stance on internet activity as well as antithetical to a lot of other ethos that circulate on tumblr. I'm not so ignorant as to pretend that tumblr is one cohesive whole in terms of how people approach posting on this site, but there's a common trend of posts that talk about how to shape your tumblr experience. "If you don't like something, it's best to unfollow people that post it or block tags." "If you aren't seeing a lot of something you think is important, you should probably search for blogs and tags that do talk about those things." "Be careful sharing and engaging with depressive posts because constantly surrounding yourself with things that dwell on your depression is a dangerous coping method." This goes all the way back to my early tumblr experience in the early 2010s with the fandom vs hipster divide and the push against it that encouraged people not to feel shame in reblogging posts from the "wrong" side of the divide. It's likely existed before I joined in 2012, and has probably existed since like, the beginning of time, actually.

Like I started this post with: it's not an issue of people advocating for others to share their content. It's entirely true that more engagement with content encourages people to create more. That's part of how content creation works. But I take issue with five specific things that I see constantly arising in the posts I'm criticizing:

That if people enjoy something, they should reblog it no matter what

That users no longer care about sharing content, only about consuming it

That tumblr is "dying" because of bullet point 2

The guilt-tripping that blames users for bullet point 3 because they don't always reblog certain things

The utter entitlement that these posts have that users are somehow obligated to share things in order to support content creators posting things for free on tumblr

I don't like people demanding I reblog specific things. I don't like people acting entitled to attention because they're doing something for free. I don't like people making claims about tumblr's userbase that lack nuance. And I certainly do not like guilt tripping. It's a shitty, shitty thing to do.

Sharing content is good! Engaging with posts is great! It helps encourage content creators to make more content, which benefits both the creator and their audiences! But don't you dare demand that someone must reblog your posts just because they like them. Don't you dare solely blame other people for why you aren't getting the attention you want. And don't you dare guilt trip people into reblogging your content.

For what it's worth, I am a content creator. I don't draw or paint, but I do produce a fair amount of content. I make gifs. I make memes. I make videos. And I write, a lot. the difference is that I don't use tumblr as a way to market myself, and I don't get upset when something doesn't get the number of reblogs I want it to. I love it when something I make gets a lot of notes, yeah, but I also understand that there is an inevitable amount of randomness that dictates whether or not a post becomes popular, no matter how "good" it is or not. That's just how content creation works, and it's not unique to tumblr.

I'm not saying any of this to go "oh look at me, I'm so much better than all those other people" because I'm not a pretentious douchebag. I'm trying to model an approach to tumblr that I believe is considerably more realistic than the one found in the posts I'm describing. People seem to think, since tumblr is good for sharing content and helping users establish themselves as content creators, that that's how tumblr users are supposed to use it, even though there's inherent obligation on how people should be using it. One of the best things about tumblr is that it's very easy to shape your own experience and what kind of content you see, and I think it's wrong to demand people act otherwise.

[avaantares]

So uh, I’m really really disappointed with the Torchwood fandom right now (over what you addresses in your post about being respectful/a normal human being online), and I’m just not quite sure how to deal with that. Sorry to barge in with this, but you seem like a really understanding, level-headed person 😅

I feel you, Anon, and you are certainly not the only one I’ve heard from! A number of people have told me they’ve been growing more uncomfortable with the fandom’s atmosphere lately, and have been actively avoiding posting about certain topics for fear of dogpiling. (This actually came up in a few private conversations before I made the post you referenced, and helped cement my decision to speak up.)

This post is long, so here’s a dash-saver. Below the jump I talk about the state of the Torchwood fandom, how people can avoid and resolve drama on their own posts, and some things everyone can do to make the internet a nicer place.

While my recent post was not targeted solely at the Torchwood fandom (the “how dare you differ in opinion from me” trend is disturbingly widespread; see also: politics), it is true that there has been a lot of sectionalism and polarization in that fandom lately. Fandom niches have always existed, but as the Torchwood fandom shrinks – whether due to natural attrition, lack of interest in the new content, or whatever reason – the Venn circles for each area of interest also shrink, making each group appear more segregated, and resulting in less crossover and less generalized Torchwood fandom.

Now, specific interest groups within the fandom are not a bad thing! They occur naturally, since not everyone engages with fandom the same way. Some people listen to the new Big Finish releases, while others have only seen the original series. Some people enjoy trading headcanons, while others aren’t interested. Some people create fanart or fanfiction, while others just reblog gifsets. Some people are only in the fandom for one specific character, and that’s okay! We’re all fans of the same source material; we can all share and respect each other’s unique interests!

The problems arise when we stop doing that, when interest groups become isolationist (i.e. ”we’re the only real fans”), or when one group decides their focus/interest is more important than another group’s or individual’s. If any group begins policing or calling out other fans who don’t share their views, that’s a problem. If fans are afraid to share their opinion on a topic because of the threat of harassment or name-calling from other fans, that’s a problem. If we can no longer politely discuss our respective viewpoints or agree to disagree, that’s a problem. If we all start blocking each other because we can’t get over the fact that Person A loves Gwen Cooper and Person B doesn’t, or Person C ships Person D’s NoTP, or Person E headcanons a character as a particular sexuality/alignment/whatever and Person F has a different headcanon, there will be no fandom left because everyone who loves Torchwood will be on another fan’s block list.

“But wait!” Person A cries. “[Opinion I hold] is really important to me, and is relevant to my personal identity! By disagreeing with me, Person B is being disrespectful to my identity!”

Sorry, but no. Certainly, Person A is allowed their opinion, and that opinion may well be informed by their personal identity or beliefs. But Person B is also allowed an opinion, which may also be informed by their identity or beliefs. Person A’s personal opinion is no more or less valid than Person B’s. It’s not about B being disrespectful to A by voicing an alternate opinion; it’s about both A and B showing mutual respect by acknowledging that the other person has an opinion.

Of course, just because you’re fully entitled to state an opinion doesn’t mean you are correct, or that you have license to say anything you want free of consequence. Any time you put your opinion out there, you are opening yourself up to disagreement or rebuttal.

“So how can I avoid people aggressively disagreeing with me?” Person A asks. “I hate reading dissenting viewpoints, especially on my own posts.”

Well, you have two options. Option 1 is for those who honestly can’t handle any level of conflict or disagreement, and that’s not to post your opinion at all.

“That’s no fun!” says Person A. “I like to share my opinions.”

Well, that brings us to Option 2: Set the tone of your posts. See, here’s the thing: If you post your opinion in an agonistic manner, you’re more likely to elicit agonistic response. Here’s an example of two different post tones:

A’s Post: I went outside today and looked up, and the sky looked blue to me, so I think the actual color of the sky must be blue.

This is a clear statement of opinion, phrased with supporting rationale, but it’s focused on the person who holds that opinion, rather than targeting or disparaging someone who subscribes to a different one. A dissenter might counter with this:

B’s Response: I’ve always thought the sky looked white. Those puffy spots up there are definitely white, so I think that’s the real color of the sky.

It’s relatively polite, with no offensive personal remarks, and (again) it’s focused on why they personally believe what they do. It is likely that this sort of rational discussion could continue for many exchanges without becoming heated or aggressive. Maybe one will convince the other, or maybe they’ll stick to their own beliefs and agree to disagree, but nobody’s getting hurt and nobody’s getting blocked.

Now, compare that to this type of post:

A’s Post: OMG I hate when those white-sky idiots say the sky is white, they must all be MORONS because it’s clearly BLUE and if you don’t agree you’d best unfollow me NOW because i don’t want you anywhere near my posts. This is a BLUE SKY ONLY BLOG.

This person has already personally attacked anyone with a different view, drawn a line in the sand, and declared that this is the hill they will die on – all without supporting their opinion with a shred of evidence or reason. Naturally, this will only serve to inflame the other side:

B’s Response: HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A MORON, I’ll have you know I have a Master’s Degree in Cloud Watching and I wrote my thesis on why the sky is white. Only uneducated idiots think the sky is blue. BLOCKED.

Yeah, this exchange is never going to result in any kind of rational discussion. It is already 100% emotional, and there is no actual discussing going on, just name-calling. Getting involved in this kind of argument is a waste of time and energy, will not change anyone’s mind, and will only succeed in stressing out all parties.

“But the sky really IS blue!” Person A protests. “It doesn’t matter what tone I take, I’m still right!”

Nah, in this case both sides are wrong. The sky’s apparent color depends on the angle of the sun’s rays, humidity, and the way light in the visible spectrum is scattered by air molecules. It looks blue when the sun is high, and red or orange when the sun is near the horizon, but the sky itself is colorless. (There’s your science fact for the day). Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how right OP thinks they are; chances are the other person is just as convinced that they’re right, and it’s entirely possible that you’re fighting over something completely arbitrary or fundamentally unimportant.

And that brings me back to the Torchwood fandom and the hill-I-will-die-on arguments that have been plaguing it more and more in recent months. There is one thing I think we can ALL agree on, no matter our individual interests, and that is that Torchwood’s canon is a hot buttered mess. The original TV series is internally inconsistent; the novels contradict both the TV series and other novels; the comics contradict themselves, the novels, and the TV series; Miracle Day contradicts EVERYTHING that came before, including parent series Doctor Who; and the Big Finish dramas try really hard to respect all the prior releases, and mostly just end up creating their own canon, because it’s utterly impossible to reconcile everything. If canon can’t even agree on relatively simple things like

whether or not Jack can get drunk (no: BBC novels / yes: also BBC novels)

whether or not Jack can sleep/dream (no: TV and BBC novels / yes: also TV and BBC novels, plus BBC audio dramas)

if Jack and Ianto went on a date after KKBB (yes: BBC novels / no: also BBC novels)

what year Owen was born (1980: TV and Torchwood Magazine / 1981: TV and BBC novels)

what Ianto’s sister’s last name is (Evans: The Torchwood Archives / Davies: CoE)

…there are bound to be contradictory fan views on more complex issues, and there may not be a clear “correct” or “incorrect” position. It is possible to find canon support for nearly any Torchwood headcanon, because Torchwood canon is consistently inconsistent. Don’t make every issue a hard line in the sand. Accept that people are different, and based on their own unique backgrounds and experiences, people can legitimately come to different conclusions when presented with the same canon evidence (or lack thereof).

(Hmm… it’s almost like this principle could also apply to real-life sources of conflict like politics, religion, and social and cultural norms. Maybe keeping an open mind is a good idea in general…?)

“Well, it’s MY blog, and I can say what I want,” says Person A. “If people don’t like it that’s their problem.”

That is absolutely true. But remember, whatever you put out there is likely going to come right back at you. If you go with a rude or aggressive stance, or if you make personal attacks, you should expect your replies/reblogs to be just as nasty. If you escalate, so will they.

“Okay, so what if I post something polite and someone STILL comes back with a nasty response?” Person A asks. “I’m honestly feeling so attacked right now, and it isn’t even my fault!”

There are a couple of solutions to this that don’t involve breaking out the napalm:

Check for a misunderstanding. It’s hard to interpret tone in plain text sometimes. If you think the person may have honestly misinterpreted your post, maintain the polite tone and either clarify your post, or ask them (nicely) to explain why they are so upset about what you posted. Look for resolution, rather than merely refuting their post.

Don’t respond. “Be the bigger person” may sound cliche, but believe it or not, the world will not end if you choose not to engage someone on the internet. There is great power in putting down the phone or stepping away from the keyboard, and it’s much better for your blood pressure and stress level. Plus, if that person keeps raging on posts and not getting any responses, it may make them wonder why nobody pays attention to their opinions. Speaking of which…

“YOO-HOO!” hollers Person Z from waaaaaaay over in the corner. “Hi there! I just came for the fanart, and I’d like to participate more, but I’m really stressed out by the way this fandom is arguing all around me. I’m worried that if I post anything, someone will yell at me and tell me I’m wrong. That would really upset me.”

So let’s talk positive reinforcement for a second! This is where the casual observers and innocent bystanders can have a lot of power to steer the direction that fandom grows. Ultimately, the goal of all social media is to elicit interaction, whether that’s in the form of Likes, Reblogs, Replies, Retweets, Shares, Follows, or what have you. Giving posts this kind of interaction is like praising the writer. Reblogging also makes that post visible to more people, potentially attracting them to your fandom circle. Posts with more notes get seen more, read more, and can set the tone for other fandom interactions. The more rational, polite posts get spread around and accumulate notes, the more rational, polite people will be likely to get involved, and the more likely a new post on that topic will be worded in a rational, polite way. Whereas interacting with argumentative, nasty, stressful posts will tend to make new people avoid your fandom, and will encourage more people to turn things into a drama-fest because that’s what gets the notes, and notes are currency.

So when you see a post that just looks like a slap-fight or upsets you in some way, just ignore it and keep right on scrolling. You don’t need to attract drama to yourself or your blog, and you don’t need to feed that machine. But if you see someone doing it right, or if there’s an ongoing polite discussion, consider getting involved in the conversation! You can comment, reblog, reply or just like if you don’t have anything to add. Pay the polite, thoughtful interactions in notes and let the harsh posts die an unreblogged death.

So, dear Anon, that’s a very long-winded expansion on my previous post, and one you didn’t exactly ask for. :) But you’re not alone; many of us want to initiate change for the better. I hope we can help the fandom return to the happier, more collaborative place it was not so long ago.

Be kind to each other, be respectful, let go of whatever is driving you to have the last word, and we’ll all have more fun and significantly lower blood pressure.

[judaphotography]

An exploration of who has the right to judge art

Art is a vast topic that can span across different mediums, context, and expression. It is equally a form of expression as it is execution, which makes it seemingly subjective. However, art does have guidelines and patterns, which create what people class as good or bad art. This creates an apparent correct way art should be viewed and how it should be judged. This essay will be exploring who has the right to make those judgments. 

When judging art and it's worth and quality there is a  consensus of what to evaluate. When looking at judgement criteria from art competitions like LightSpaceTime’s we can see that the standard for art being judged is “Interpretation and the clarity of the theme to the viewer. Creativity and originality of the depicted theme. Quality of artistic composition and overall design based on the theme. Overall impression of the art.” With looking at other competitions, criteria art critiques use and educated views of what makes good art, for instance examples from the art of education university and interviews with artists,  we can see an emerging pattern that context, technique, concept, and originality are the qualities in which we base art. Li Hongbo has said “My artistic creation has lots of themes… I want to change the image, change how people see things so they think in another way, and more deeply.” In response to what makes good art, supporting the idea that good art needs to be original and have meaning. 

However, John Baldessari’s photographic series “Wrong” challenges the idea of what art needed to be to be good. He took the traditional “rules” within the art world and decided to create pieces that challenged them. The series is a collection of images paired with text, the most famous being entitled wrong, which is an unfocussed poorly composed image of a man with text that says wrong underneath. Baldessari created these pieces because he wanted to convey that we do not have to conform to traditional qualities in art for it to be good; art doesn’t have to be judged, and when talking about work he has said “You don't want anyone to say 'You can't do that!' But you do get a lot of that in New York. One of the healthiest things about California is - 'Why not”.Baldessari made his art for himself and because he wanted to, but through that has become a renowned conceptual artist. From the series  we can see there are exceptions to what people class as good art and although Baldessari’s series is not technically good it still meets the criteria of being original and being rich in context.

The museum of bad art is a place showcasing “bad art” “since 1994,The museum of bad art has been dedicated to bad art… our mission; to bring the worst of art to the widest of audiences” Obviously the art which they showcase is bad; like the painting Eyes see you by F.W Covington which is paired with the interpretation “The artist has effectively portrayed life-sized pairs of disembodied eyes on a flame-red background; some staring straight ahead while others glance left or right. They are realistic and iconic in their simplicity.” by Holly Maxson. By this description alone we can estimate the technique is not good with use of effectively as a descriptor conveys a standard skill level. Also the meaning wouldn’t appear complex or profound, as they are just eyes. Perhaps art that lacks these two characteristics are what we as a collective deem bad art. 

The difference between these two works purely lies on the intent behind them. Both are technically bad, however Baldessari’s piece was created for the intent to challenge why? So as people judging art it is not all about the physicality of it but equally the context. Without context both would be seen as bad art, but this idea of contextual knowledge revises its worth, causing the idea of elitism within art as you need to have context to fully enjoy it. 

Antonio Houmen, former art director of the Sonnabend Gallery has said “The definition of art will change and who it can be judged by will change also.Video art was popularised in the 1970’s but made people question if it was art.  Every time art takes a form people don't recognize, they ask ''Is that art?”. Houmen expostulates the idea that art is one thing, the idea that art is stagnant is incorrect and the idea that the merits of what art is and who judges it needs to be inconstant. The idea that art is really integrated into current culture and is ever changing is not a new premise, and how art can also influence and change society around us.

The recent social isolation is proof of how integrated art is into mundane things, as many people have been turning to comforts like television and video games, subtly depending on the artists which have created them. “ That is just the reason why art is so valuable! While art may not be vital to fulfill our basic needs, it does make life joyful. When you look at a painting or poster you’ve chosen to hang on your living room wall, you feel happy. ...These varieties of art forms that we are surrounded by all come together to create the atmosphere that we want to live in, which is personable to us.” Due to art having a natural comfort, it becomes every day. 

In Neil Gaiman's book “Art matters” he talks about how art is created to challenge the current system and possibly change it, ““I believe you have the absolute right To think things that I find offensive, stupid, preposterous or dangerous, and they have the right to speak and write or distribute these things ”.If art is so integrated into society it should be those who have the right to judge it.

Some believe that it is only the right of an artist to judge their work. Many artists themselves believe that only they have the right to judge their own work, such as Jenny Holzer, an neo-conceptual artist. “The artist is someone who can judge the art as they are the only one that truly knows the art.” “I think you can rely on the artist's representation; he or she would have no reason to lie.” showing us that the intent is what artwork is truly about not the finished content, and by this only the person that created the work can know the true meaning. Carrying on from this Robert Hughs, an art critic said “As far as I am concerned, something is a work of art if it is made with the declared intention to be a work of art and placed in a context where it is seen as a work of art. That does not determine whether it is esthetically rich or stupidly banal.” Anyone can have an opinion on a piece and see it how they wish, however, the process of art relies on the artist having intent and judgment, and therefore can be the only opinion that matters.

The case of Beau Stanton’s Eva Gardner mural, shows the two sides of an artist being responsible for the art. Many people found the artwork offensive and wanted it removed from Koreatown L.A, as the background offended korean activists as the sunray pattern is similar to the japanese imperial flag. Stanton has said he created the mural as “ a homage to the Cocoanut Grove’s Hollywood history”  artists like Shepard Fairey have said “ It’s not the same color scheme. It’s not the same focal element. It’s stupid to me.” and he finds it a form of censorship and threatened to remove his mural of Richard F Kenedy. Eventually the mural was removed showing that people see the judgment of others and how they see work, is more important to the public than the intent of the artist. 

Many people within art academia believe that to truly judge art you need to be educated within it, for example Robert Rosenblum, former Professor of art history, New York University; curator at the Guggenheim Museum said “But there has to be consensus about good art among informed people -- artists, dealers, curators, collectors. Somebody has to be the first to say something is good”, and William Rubin former Director emeritus of painting and sculpture, Museum of Modern Art said “There's a consensus as to what is art in most periods, but it's not made by the man on the street. It is formed by those deeply concerned with the substance of art.” “There is no single definition of art that's universally tenable. Cultures without even a word for art nevertheless produced great art”. Implying art is more than an aesthetic but also a history and something deeply contextual, so for a person to truly be able to judge art and see what it is you must be educated and know these histories. Regardless, some people and artists see this as a classist belief that to be an artist means you need to be educated and pay for that right through education.

“ Art has landed in many more households and in the awareness of many more people than ever before. You could argue that because art is so ubiquitous it is even harder to make judgments.”Philippe De Montebello former Director, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Undeniably art is a part of everyone's lives, especially with growing use of social media, and as everyone has access to art they have the right to judge it, and every opinion is correct, as art is an experience that can only be felt by oneself. When forming an opinion on art we look at our past experiences with the outside world, as well as other art we have viewed,due to the omnipresence of art through televisions, phones and even mundane objects like tea towels there is such a diversity of experience, which no two people would share. Combined with the independent experience of living no two people would see art as truly the same. Therefor claiming one to be more important holds judgements of  others, and arguably holds ideas of classism. 

I created a survey of my peers, many of which are artists from different backgrounds, which use different mediums. As in theory any question can be asked but that doesn’t take into account the reality of theoretical questions, and that there are artists who will all have a say and view on art judgment. When asked “Do you feel your art practice and art knowledge has grown with more experience creating or with education?” 50% of people said it was a mixture of both creation and education. “My art knowledge has grown through education, but my art practice has definitely just grown through creating” artists can see that there are two sides to art: a creative and educated side, which both can grow over time and make people better artists. Assumably there is the belief that some art knowledge is inherit, as 100% of the artists believed that they can judge art and 50% unprompted said that it is possible for everyone to judge art. While others say they have bias’ to certain art but can still judge it, however, it is just as possible for the bias’ to come from education therefore making the judgment more correct, which is highlighted by one of the responses when asked if they can judge art; “ Everyone can. Its a visual platform and everyone is going to have a response. But there is a moral line where some people either have no knowledge or too much and their opinions can be a bit out of place” implying that everyone can judge art but some people have more of a right to judge. 

When asked if they believe if art has a set meaning, all of those questioned said no. Clearly showing that art is meant for other people to view and not just the artist “I don't think so, even if the artist makes it with an intended meaning, whenever it is viewed the meaning is shaped by the viewer's life experience and perspective. It can also vary with context”, “There's an intended meaning but unlimited meanings beyond that”. Many artists are open to the idea that their art can have multiple meanings, as the context of the viewer is what really creates the meaning of an image; supporting the theory that everyone can bring judgement and meaning to art.

Seemingly artists tend to view art as something anyone can find meaning and context in and rightfully so if the piece brings emotions. Yet see judgment as something different but still crucial to the process.  Overall “It is in the sense that every time someone views art that are making some kind of judgement or critique automatically, but I don't think it always has to be formalised, or that certain judgements should be considered more important than others just because of someone's status.” summarises the view on art judgment from practitioners. Judgment is a part of art, or judgment is a part of humans, either way it will naturally occur when looking at a piece of work. The judgment is not what we should be questioning but, who and why and what are people judging and being able to see people's views without the elitist ideology of certain people having a more correct opinion, but rather an equality of views. 

When looking at “Who can judge art” we do not take into account the process of art and the fact that judgment is a part of it. When deciphering “what is art?” in his book “How art can be thought: a handbook for change” Desouza argues that art can be whatever the artist makes. He proposes that art is created by two things, prior to the art being made. There is a proposal then an action and then an object.Then after the art is created it has to create a conversation, not for it to be art but for it to be profitable art. “But more importantly art is a conversation.” If we look at art as a non verbal form of communication, then the judgment and perceptions are a part of it as a language, the nature of art is to talk about it. Which can be related to the idea that educated and experienced artists could be held to higher regard in their opinion as they can “speak art” better as they have a richer context and understanding. However, the idea that art should or can only be judged by a certain type of person rather than everyone, is absurd as judgment is clearly a part of art,as much as it is a part of humans.