Sunday, 2nd July, 2006

In Praise Of Admins

web forums rant

A little while back, I got myself into a (tiny) tizz about certain other people being made admins of a certain Flickr group, without even a nod or a wink in my direction.

"Excuse me", I thought. "Hold on a minute. I'm hugely important and significant and important and whatnot. What about ME?!"

I am, after all, A Princess™

This tizz lasted all of fifteen seconds, after which I suddenly realised I was so totally not the type of person that (a) should be an admin, and (b) wants to be an admin.

About five years ago, I was a moderator on a Yahoo Group (although it was an eGroup at the time — remember those?) Not a very big one — although it's grown to over 1000 members since then — but one on which there was a fair bit of communication, and the odd episode of unpleasantness that had to be dealt with.

In the main, it was just a day-to-day checking of messages for viruses and off-topic rubbish, but every once in a while a spat would break out between two members — or someone would post something that seemed "unsuitable".

I mean, OK, so basically it was a pr0n group — or rather, it was a group of people who all shared a particular kink and wanted to share pictures with each other — but sometimes the levels of acceptability strayed a little too close to the borders.

Once, someone posted something that I felt wasn't really the sort of thing that should be in the group, so I deleted it and told the poster off. I tried to do it in as friendly and pleasant as I could, but it sparked off a torrent of accusatory abuse from the guy.

It did my head in. Not because of his comeback, but because I found myself unable to defend myself.

See, as ranty and as stroppy as I can be sometimes, I have incredibly thin skin. I'm prone to taking things far too personally, unable to shrug them off (although sometimes I appear to) and I let them fester in the back of my head for weeks.

(I'm still a bit wound up about that "I got drunk. It was fab etc." thing BTW)

I'm always, consistently impressed by how the admins and moderators of groups that I belong to deal with little 'hiccups' in the day-to-day flow of banter. It must be a bloody nightmare sometimes dealing with the influx of trolls and Flashrs whilst not letting it get too you.

You know the role I much prefer? I always love being the back-room-techie girl — the one who quietly beavers away in the background making sure things run smoothly, jumping on glitches but not having to deal with the unpredictability of Actual People™

So yeah. Admins are cool. But I'd never want to be one.

Pruning And Self Editing

photography

(Or "Trying to Counter the Post-Photoshoot Euphoria")

Whenever I actually get up enough enthusiasm to Go The Whole Hog™ and attempt a photoshoot — shave, do make-up, wear clothes and set up my tripod — I almost invariably spend a good few hours after all the gunk has come off my face staring desperately at a screen-full of Photoshop, trying to eek out a good picture.

To this day, it still depresses me how I never seem to qquite be able to capture on CCD what I see when I look in a mirror.

The thing is though, having spent a good hour getting ready, and another hour taking fifty-billion photographs, I'm loathe to consign them all the the iPhoto Album Of Doom™ — never to see the hoardes of trannyFlickr grey-boys light of day.

And so, I invariably get myself into a self-delusional zone — a zone in which I convince myself that at least one of the photos is Fit For Public Consumption.

I think, sometimes, that the more you stare at a sequence of photographs of yourself, the less your 'objectiveness' gets. Your perception and judgement about what constitutes "good" is clouded — or rather, reframed — by the rest of the pictures. So you become convinced that 'the best of a bad lot' is actually the most stunning picture of yourself that you've ever taken.

This is why, every once in a while (or perhaps more than that ) a photograph will appear in my photostream that, in retrospect, isn't exactly the most flattering picture of me, evah.

Take this one for example...

Now, I know — it's an incredibly cute outfit. The word "adorable" springs to mind. But as a good photo of me...?

Nah — the eyes aren't right. My brow is too heavy.

(In an ideal world, I wouldn't have to rely on my "point, shoot, hope for the best" approach to photography. I kinda need someone to tell me how to pose when being photographed)

Anyway, blah blah blah — I've written about this on numerous occasions.

The reason I brought it up, is because I've recently done a bit of a purge on my Girl Set. I'm really proud of that set — and excuse my vanity for a second, but I happen to think that there are some seriously good and possibly convincing photographs in there.

But they weren't all perfect. So I've taken a few out.

Ideally, I want that set to be my absolute bestest. But as I've said, my opinion is often clouded by looking at myself too much. So, I would really appreciate a bit of honest and constructive criticism with the ones that I've left in there.

Technobile: Voicemail

link

"Some people hate to take silence as an answer" — indeed. Personally, I just point-blankly refuse to have an answer machine. (guardian.co.uk)

Likewise

Photography is an art not a science

D'ya think?

Photography is too wide a discipline to categorically state what 'it' is. The photographs of me that make up my Girl set aren't, taken individually, Art per se — rather they're individual documentative photographs that form part of a wider piece of conceptual performance-based work that I happen to call "Siobhan Curran"

But I think you're missing my point. My point is located around how I engage subjectively with the representations of myself that I post online, and how even though I'm able at a later date to objectively assess them (to some degree), the heat of the moment and the self-obsessive excitement of the moment means that my judgement on what makes a 'good' photo of me is sometimes clouded by the heady excesses of my crossdressing.

What I'm asking for here, is a second pair of eyes — an objective one. Not a patronising diatribe from a naive and outdated point of view about what 'Art' is.

Do me a favour and check what I do for a living before saying things like "this more than likely means that your artistic side is — well perhaps not all you think it to be in terms of ability" and "give a piece of charcoal and pad to a PROPER artist"

OK?

I have a question, what should be considered "best" on your photos?

Zaida, let me get back to you on that. That's a really interesting question which deserves a decent answer rather than a top-of-my-head one.

You will at least know said person did try to call and still is thinking about you

Stef — shit. Sorry honey. I haven't spoken to you in ages, it would be good to catch up.

One of the main reasons I got rid of my answerphone, was nothing to do with interruptions and the reasons outlined in The Guardian's article — it was because I was getting some pain-in-the-arse long-winded messages from one particular phone number (nothing to do with being a tranny or anything), and it was doing my head in.

I theorised that if anyone had something really important to tell me, then they'd keep trying until they caught me in — or sent me an email.

But yeah, you're right — I can't tell when an old friend from the States has been trying to get hold of me Wish I was going over again this year BTW — I'd thought about it, but it's not posible this time. I was hoping to catch up with you again, and try and bump into Kath as well.

Horses for courses, I guess.

I think, Rachel, that I just don't work in a field where it's important enough to telephone me to be honest

I know

I have a question, what should be considered "best" on your photos?

OK, I'll have a stab at this.

I was initially going to say something unhelpful — like "ones I don't look stupid in", but that's, um, unhelpful.

I was also going to say something like "ones I look convincing in" — but that's not accurate.

I think, one of the overiding things for me when I'm looking at photographs of myself, is that everything in the photo has to 'work'. It can't just be about documenting a particular outfit (like the one above is), or documenting a particular event.

Sorry — that's not quite right.

I'm going to try and compare two different pictures, to give an example of what I think is a 'good' one, and a 'bad' one...

Fierté (the one on the left) is one of my favourites ever, whereas 00059 (on the right, natch) is one of my least favourites. There is an obvious 'naturality' about Fierté — a proud and unapologetic naturality — but I think that the key thing about what makes it stand out, is that I wouldn't be ashamed of it as a photograph if it dropped out my pocket while I was walking down a street¹.

00059, on the other had, is staged and contrived. I'm over-emphasising certain facial features in it, and relying on particular 'props' (as it were) to compensate for a lack of that 'naturality'.

I mean, it's partly the difference on intent behind the two pictures. Fierté was the best of about six shots I took of myself just after I was wearing that EGL dress up above. It was a chance thing — a momentary glance in a mirror and the thought "hey — I look kinda hot"

00059 was part of my attempts to achieve my 'reverse-crossdressing' Holy Grail, and as such, the intentions are about forcing a missing 'sexiness' on a situation.

I don't (I feel) do 'sexy' very well — not in the traditional sense of the word. But this is the part where my judgement gets clouded. In trying to convey the same sense of 'sexiness' that I feel about myself, I sometimes make rash decisions about how 'good' the photographs I just took are.

¹ Zaida, there you go. That's what a "good photo of me" is. It's one that if it was seen by someone wo didn't know me, in a context outside of my normal tranny-wanderings, wouldn't look ridiculous. It's got nothing necessarily to do with the clothes — it's just about whether someone would look at it and (justifiably) mock it. Maybe.

you don't have to "do" sexy

I think that's kinda my point. Whenever I try to, then I fail. But I always seem to post them, because maybe I feel like I've put too much effort in not too — when it's actually because I've put too much effort in that I shouldn't.

Sorry — I was having my tea...

Three Rules For Commenting On Tranniefesto.co.uk

rant troll tranniefesto

1. Markdown is fun. You may prefer HTML or Textile, but I think John Gruber is hot, and I like the 'email-based-approach' to it all.

2. It's your alias not your screen-name.

3. Never patronise your hostess.

*sigh*

At what point in all of this did we leave the simple request for some help in me pairing out some of the more 'dud' photographs from my Girl set, into a tedious and pompous outburst from an idiot?

I made a decision a while back, not to feed the trolls — but I'm loathe to leave large swathes of text hanging there unresponded to, so indulge me for a minute.

Oh dear... I do seem to have hit a pseudo nerve.

You arrogant twat.

I have to reject your tantrum that my opinion is elitist and outdated.

That's because you are elitist and outdated.

I have checked what you do for a living, and like so many others if you had to do this in the real world you would be drawing income support quicker than you could say 'I think I am the only one who understands what this feels like'

Really? You mean my teaching here don't you?

You know, my non-teaching work is actually rather profitable. For what little it matters (only a fool would base the worth of artistic work on how well it sells) I do rather nicely thankyouverymuch. Despite the apparent 'easiness' and lack of 'artistic talent' that some people ascribe to what I do, it's apparently rather sought after.

But regardless, what you fail to recognise is that if I was in the "real world" (although exactly how does Academia qualify as "non-real"?) I'd have a lot more time to devote to my art practice, and would be quite happy making a seriously good living off it.

As for Miss K's 'a rudimentary knowledge of Art History' — for Christ's sake! I cannot believe anyone can say that these days with a straight face;-well perhaps Americans still do

Ah, if in doubt, bash the Yanks. That'll pass for an argument won't it?

but then hang on....didn't Prince Harry study art history at St Andrews — well he must be a fully rounded f*cking genius who has not been held back and is capable of thinking of great ideas and executing them accordingly — according to your own fuzzy logic,

Let me just stop you there before you make a tit out of yourself. Firstly, you can say "fucking" on my website. Unlike yourself, the rest of us are adults. Secondly, you're implying there that you have a grasp of logic. I take it you're aware of the phrase Non Sequitur?

and here's me thinking he was just an arrogant evil little ginger twat.

Oh. I guess not. Too late.¹

For the record — I have supported myself and others through professional careers in art illustration and design (outside of the safety net of education) for over 20 years, and currently run a successful architectural design practice in Manchester.

Ah, I was right. You resent me because I work in education.

I have also worked with, supported and commissioned several works from contemporary artists ranging from sculpture and conceptual installations through murals, photography (yes that thing again that apparently I know nothing about but you do)and textural submissions.

Good good. However where do I say you know nothing about photography? I just said you were a twat.

I have also contributed in the published written form support for some of the most interesting works by people such as Linder Sterling in both national press and professional journals.

God, I hope you don't have published work, because your grammar sucks. WTF does "I have also contributed in the published written form support for some of the most interesting works" actually mean?

It can and does all form part of Art.

Of course it does. No argument there. After all, I specifically teach interdisciplinary practice.

(psst did you know Architecture is considered "Art"? must be why I do it — -I often wondered, oh yeah that and to make an independant living

(a) you have an open bracket there that's annoying me, (b) there you go with the patronising thing again. Why do you do that? Earlier, curious to see if you were a first-time-commentor, I broke out my grep skillz and had a look back through the archives.

And this is what exactly? — A Hosta dear, and a slug eaten one at that

Don't call me "dear" asswipe.

(by the way look up the typical syllabus sometime and do some research of how many people from a none private school middle class backgrounds ever make it)

Um, let's see. There's every single friggin one of my students for a start.

However, as David Hockney oh sorry, — is he too old, narrow minded, and elitist for Miss K)- has recently very publicly stated — 'art' these days is terrible because people are no longer taught to draw in the first instance

That would be David "digital photography is not real photography" Hockney then? David "my sister makes art with a scanner" Hockney? David "I ceased to be relevant several years ago" Hockney?

Puhlease. If you're going to start quoting artists at me, at least pick one who said something interesting in the past twenty years.

Or is (as I suspect) he the only one you know?

(which I think is MY point — nothing else — before you went off on one!) it's a discipline y'see dear as well

I'm sorry? You had a point?

So your point is what? That in order to be an artist you have to be able to draw?! I believe that pathetic notion left us around the end of the nineteenth century.

However, people have to understand that is you are going to do this for a commercial living that every mark you make — be it with pencil or pixel has a cost implication attached. It dosn't detract from creativity — it adds an edge to it

I'm sorry, you just said you had a point — now you seem to be wandering off in all directions. What the hell has a "commercial living" got to do with anything — apart from your obvious jealousy that I live in (in your head) an ivory tower protected on all sides by the wonders of Academia.

You obviously did't look too far into what I do for a living, otherwise you would have noticed that I'm a part-time lecturer. And as such have to make a living doing other things.

Asshole.

In the days when I was a spikey haired punk rocker, we used to have little button badges that declared "elitism for all!" I still stand by this and fight and campaign for it still. even though it — and my appearance-got me many kickings in broad daylight in the middle of Piccadilly or on the top deck of the bus through Collyhurst back then — (probably still would in Collyhurst!)

This is irrelevant. I'm sorry you got your head kicked in, but how is this got anything to do with my work?

Unless it was a secret gang of hard-core academics who attacked you.

Sorry if this upsets you further — but if this site is for a mutual adoration club then its missing the point, and people can start by taking the attitude out of their voice.

It doesn't upset me — in fact, the only person who seems to be losing it and getting upset is you. For what it's worth, I do lament sometimes at the mutual adoration that goes on within our community — this is why I asked for "constructive criticism".

There is no purpose engaging in this only to be shouted down.

True — but I wish you had engaged. All you did was latch your predetermined, idiotic, outdated, naive ideas onto a sincere request for some advice. And you did it with such patronising tones that you immediately got my back up.

And seeing how this is my site, and it's my server, getting my back up isn't a good idea.

Thought we celebrated difference. No? ah well then.

Oh, we do. But we also ridicule ignorance — and if you waltz in here with an "I'm an asshole" t-shirt on, then you're bound to get some flak.

I don't believe that you are a troll Christinesixteenuk. But you sure as hell talk like one. What I do believe though is that you are some random disgruntled dickwad, who should really learn Rule 3 from the above. Because if you do patronise your hostess, she'll just add you to her ban list, and everyone will laugh at you when you're gone.

¹ Stephanie — have I got this right?

Anyway, where were we...

Zaida,

Interesting IMG_8328 is actually one of the ones I was pretty sure I was happy with. Whereas IMG_8215 and Birdcage (not because it's a bad photo — just because Pauline took some better ones of me that night) were two of the ones I was thinking of dropping

(Oh wait — I've got your categories mixed up haven't I? Sorry )

To make a url into a link hon, just wrap it with < > — so <http://www.flickr.com> automagically becomes http://www.flickr.com

How about I just put the double-quotes in?

The easiest way to put a link in, is to (surprise ) use Markdown formatting...

[ego linking](http://zadkiel-angel.livejournal.com)

...becomes ego linking

I Should Not BlogWatch

quip logs

Because when I do, I see referrers like this scrolling past my screen

*phew* — and thank you Stephanie