I just finished reading Beauty in Photography by the fine photographer Robert Adams. In the essay entitled, “Civilizing Criticism,” Adams writes
“The rancor that one finds now in discussions of photography is complex in origin. In part the ill will can be traced to the fact that photographic criticism is mostly the province of the young, some of whom have not yet often enough made fools of themselves to be cautious or suffered enough to be charitable.”
I think Adams’ observation applies to more than photographic criticism. In particular it offers insight into the meanness that one sees so often on the internet. He is wrong to limit his comments to the young, though.
Certainly much of internet incivility comes from those whose worldview is unalloyed by experience, especially experience of the inevitable failures that everyone encounters through life’s journey. There is another, more widespread and unprincipled cause of net nastiness, however: the anonymity that allows people to hide behind pseudonyms and avoid the responsibility of having their name associated with their words. Such anonymity removes conscience from conversations, making it easy to be dismissive or insulting. One can defame an avatar without qualm, ignoring the real person behind it.
Some places on the web don’t allow such anonymity. One example is the WELL, one of the first virtual communities still in existence. I have been a member for nearly thirty years. The policy of the WELL is YOYOW, “you own your own words,” meaning that members are responsible for what they write. While users can use pseudonyms in their posts, each pseudonym is connected to a member’s real name which can be looked up. There is no anonymity. The discussions on the WELL are much more civil than in most places on the web.
As I mention in an earlier post on intimacy (https://turnstonecom.wpcomstaging.com/intimacy/), the philosopher Martin Buber captures the essence of this problem when he talks about the importance of having an “I-thou” relationship with the world instead of an “I-it.” Anonymous internet comments represent “I-it” interactions; they are the antithesis of intimacy, devoid of scruple and the responsibility of respectfulness. It seems that for all of our connectedness we have become bereft of intimacy.
Photographic “criticism” has replaced “informative critiquing”. The two differ greatly. Criticism presupposes one has the knowledge and depth of understanding of a given topic to point out obvious flaws or incompetence of an endeavor, in a tacky manner. A critique is based upon airing a personal perspective preference over an existing one, with viable reason(s), which also leaves intact the opposing critiquing position of preferring the current perspective. In both instances knowledge and some expertise in the endeavor, photography, is required before either position is given. Otherwise, what you really have is crabbing about something without any real knowledge of it. Having a world wide platform, with anonymity, gives voice to adolescent minds in adult conversations.
Excellent point. Thanks, Grant.