I don’t blog a lot or write a lot of reviews because I don’t know why people take strangers’ opinions on subjective tastes. Who are you to me? Who am I to you? So why should we try to look for meaning in each other’s ephemeral art critiques? I am not a huge fan of yelling into the esoteric void*.
But for each nobody out here, there’s someone else who thinks we’re somebody, and for whatever reason the nobodies listen to one another’s opinions and try to form their own personal judgments off them. This can form hundreds of little grassroots pockets that self-replicate by word-of-mouth. So most of us have formed internet personas to help disseminate and absorb opinions, and most of us tailor our personas to best fit our audiences.
I’ve managed to appeal to a bunch of people whose opinions I’ve likewise found appealing, and I communicate to them in a specific way to capture that appeal. If somebody thinks my opinion is worth influencing others’ (about an act, about a piece, about a concept or a caucus or whatever), then someone has replicated a grassroots pocket, and I will act efficiently and quickly to distribute this opinion to the maximum amount of people. If need be, I will demonstrate the opinion repeatedly until the goal is reached or the window of opportunity passes, whichever comes first. Then we all move on.
There’s the process, that’s all it is for me. The means are their own end. In fact, I almost feel a little twinge of panic every time somebody contacts me, although that’s just the reaction of an extremely shy personality.
Seriously, it’s weird to read other people’s subjective art critiques. We should read each other’s in-depth analyses instead. And you should definitely not care what I say.
* Sometimes yelling into the void is fun as a purposeful device, though. It’s exceptionally amusing as a trolling/heckling technique, but really, don’t take my word for it.