Hello 
I'm Siobhan Curran/Kisa Naumova, and this is my weblog. I tend to write about stuff like crossdressing, Macs, code, cats, wine and Second Life, but in general it's just an ongoing conversation about all sorts of stuff. If you'd like to know a little bit more about what this all is, I recommend starting on this page which has a little bit of info on who I am, and what I'm trying to do — or you could dive into my five years worth of archives if you like.
Otherwise, feel free to close this box and explore...
Shit
rant web2.0 shit content photography art
I am, obviously, a fan of user-generated content. The old models of top-down publishing within the creative arts are defunct. Because of sites like Flickr and del.cio.us, the web is bristling with new forms of creativity — communities and identities springing up all over the place, exuding life, spontanaeity and 'art'.
Everywhere you look, AJAX-fuelled-petri-dishes are teeming with new forms of expression. Monumentally impressive and awe-inspiring things are pinging onto monitors and browsers every day. Feeds are jam-packed with conceptual nuggets of wonder.
And yet, there is so much shit.
Shit is inevitable. "Shit" — as they say — "happens". It's an unescapable dark-side of human existence — that for every piece of gold-dust there's a corresponding tidal-wave of faeces.
It's just how things work — I mean, it's just how things have always worked. If you go back to the very dawn of the web, for every spark of shining brilliance, there were a million GeoCities Home Pages.
For every Every Icon there was a gazillion animated gifs.
The change that I'm noticing now — in this era of twopointohs and MySpaceBooks — is that it's no longer acceptable to call something "shit".
...
I, as you know, admin a couple of vaguely popular groups on Flickr. And in my role as Person Who Makes Sure There's Nothing Naughty Going On™, I find myself looking through every image that gets posted to them.
As a consequence, I come across see a large amount of shit every day.
Photo after photo of the same pose in front of a radiator, just with different outfits. Snapshot after snapshot of the same CGI nipples, just with different PS effects whacked on them. The tide of dirge is never-ending, and unstoppable.
The thing is though, I firnly believe that it's all valid. The interfaces are purely digital — it's either "Yes" or "No". "Yes, I want to upload these", or "No, I don't". There's nothing in the technological substructore — even in Web 2.0 sites — to determine if something is good or not.
No. The affirmations of whether something is "good" is left up to the other users of that site. If I want to flood the trannyflickr pool with fifty photographs of the same outfit, from the same angle, just with slightly different facial expressions, over the next ten days, then the only thing that stands in the way is the approval of the other members.
If I want to inject the monotony of me from 360° into the Second Life group at a rate of 1/4 pictures per hour for the next six months, then the only thing that's holding me back is the disapproval of the other two thousand-odd members.
But there is no disapproval.
Trust me — like I said, I look at a lot of photographs. And half of the time — for the hell of it — I click through the shit ones, just to see what the responses are. And I'm usually gob-smacked by how positive everything is.
"Looking great!"
Er, no. Looking shit, really.
"Wow! ur hot!"
Er, no. 'ur' minging, to be honest.
"What a beautiful photo!"
Er, no. What a clichéd and over-used set of filters, I feel.
...
It occurred to me, obviously, on the way home this evening, that there's probably a very valid reason for the lack of critical debate within the comments-boxes of photos and blogs (she said, extending the reach of her indignation to blogs as well) — that Ever So Nice™ axiom that "if you haven't got something nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all".
Which is fair enough, I guess. An excercise in politeness — something that's all too often lacking in the expression-pit of the internets.
But
You put something online, and you invite comments, then you should expect criticisms. You see something online, that's inviting comments, then you should criticise.
Now, obviously, I'm completely guilty of not being critical. I don't — as a rule — say something critical, at least, not in a public forum. I might — every once in a while — email someone to tell them that I think they've done better in the past. Or I might offer some cropping suggestions, perhaps. But I don't, generally, fling myself into the midst of a series of "Wow!" comments to say "Actually, that's shit".
I do, however, consol myself against my complete cowardice by noting to myself that I don't say that something is "brilliant!" when I think that it's shit.
...
But hey. Is it important?
Does it matter that a few egoes have been massaged? Is it really something to get worked up about that a few people who have bravely stuck themselves in front of a camera, or have hit ctrl-shift-s, get an inflated sense of the overall artisticness of their abilities?
Yes. FFS yes it matters.
It matters because it inspires unwarranted bravado. "Wow! You really pass!" firstly shifts the focus of self-expression away from the 'self' and onto the 'other', and secondly instils false expectations into the mind of the 'passee'.
You might think you're being supportive and harmlessly flattering, but you're setting your commentee up for a ridiculously large fall.
It matters because it sets up anticipation for the next round of flattery. Someone posts a picture, and they get fifty supportive "Wow!"s. The rest of their internets-existence is then spent trying to recapture that uncapturable enthusiam, and they either convince themselves that they're completely worthless, or that anything they do is worthless.
It matters because it devalues feedback. It's not hard to spot the sycophants — you just post something you know yourself to be shit, see who says "Wow!", and then disregard everything they every say to you again.
And it matters, because the web is now full of millions and millions of people who honestly believe it's valid to classify themselves as "artists", based purely on the sycophantic admiration of a bunch of peers who didn't have the guts to say "actually, that's shit", or the nouce to not say "Wow!"
...
I just wish I had the guts to name names.
Yeah, but I just might give it a shot one night — providing I was drunk enough.
An analogy just popped into my head thoughm relating to this, and I thought I shoudl share — becuase I think it emphasises my point somewhat...
I am not, a programmer. I have a hand-fisted, self-taught, hobbyist approach to coding. Sometimes I make interesting things through this approach, sometimes I make security-bug-riddled monstrosities.
People who read this blog, and who witness my weak-lemondrink-approaches to coding must shake their heads in depairs sometimes — I imagine.
Like I said though, despite the output of various interesting little apps every once in a while, I would be the first person to hold up my hands and say "I am not a programmer".
Programmers spend years learning things. They specialise in packages. They read book after book, and line after line of code, until they understand everything that goes on. To reach the heights of someone who can call themselves "a programmer" takes years of study and devotion.
I may think in interesting ways, and make interesting things — but I'm not a programmer.
Yet some people feel that three comments on a photo in a far-flung nether-region of a website that proclaim them to be an "artist" gives them the right to start brandishing that moniker around like they studied for it for fifteen fucking years.
...
Gah. Ranty rant rant fucking rant.
When I was younger, I used to bemoan that everyone who had a PC and a copy of Microsoft Publisher thought they could call themselves a "designer".
Now, I bemoan that anyone with enough random people that a website tells them are their 'friends' to confirm it, can call themselves whatever they like.
And honestly believe it.
Bloody hell. I just stopped the trannyflickr pool and then I read this
I'm just so sick of shit K. I feel like sometimes I've got two tiny fans in front of my eyes, and there's a perpetually growing queue of elves lining up to throw handfuls of shit into them.
To be hones though, shit I can take — it's the feeling (from wherever) that I can't say that it's shit that bugs me. Wherever this unseen pressure to be "supportive" — even in the face of unmitigatingly tedious wank — comes from, it annoys the hell out of me.
"I can't level some fair and honest criticism against this, because I'll be one lone voice of out thirty 'Wow! Looking gr8!'s"
And in the SL group too — there are occasionally things that make my jaw drop, and my finger twitch over my mouse, because I just have to look at them and offer some sign of apreciation.
But again, there is So. Much. Shit.
And equally, again, I wouldn't mind — it's just the insistent bleatings that it's "art", without any actual thought about what "art" might be.
It's an age old complaint, not just one limited to the web-enabled times. It can be rephrased as "just because you can, doesn't mean you should. As in: just because you can post the photo, there's nothing saying you should.
Except the applause that comes with doing so.
Much of it is, most likely, well-meaning. If so many people post horrible pictures, and others shout their enthusiasm of them, all it actually means is that neither group knows what goes into a good picture. Or maybe some of the group does, but just doesn't care.
Most people simply don't know what "makes" a good picture. It does take education and training; but words and titles are, as you point out, more easily purloined.
Is there a solution? Not really. If you have an open group, the detritus will outweigh the good by a huge margin. If you limit the group, you're creating an awful lot of work (for yourself), but maybe an opportunity to create something you're proud of.
I'd counsel that if you're going to "do something" about the problem, it might be better received if you pick out the really good shots, and explain why they're good. Pointing out the crap will only annoy more than the individuals you're naming. Criticism that's presumptuous — whatever your intentions — will backfire. Provide the benefit of the doubt (they simply don't know), and then teach them. If they "get it", great. And if they don't, maybe they're just not interested.
Just a thought, or two...
Carolyn Ann
Oh: if you're going to critique bad shots, ask first! Your assumption about comments and criticism applies only when saying good things. When saying bad things, it's better (eg polite, considerate, etc) to let someone know, and get their permission, and support. Otherwise, you simply end up looking like a curmudgeon — and you lose credibility. (And state that you have the person's permission!)
Wow, great post, and you look fabulous. Are you a real girl?
Hem, hem, moving on. Totally agree. Sometimes, you just want to be blunt and say "Beard cover. Try it. You'll thank me." Or "A skirt, you know, that piece of cloth people wear around their waists, a wise investment."
But then again, who needs another tw@ out there having a dig?
Thing is, imho, because there is no way to convey tone in comments made on the interweb, people will take constructive criticism in many different ways, most likely not well.
So many thoughts running round my head as I read this. I am one of the masses who has never said anything bad about a photo on Flickr. I only ever comment if a picture gets a reaction of some kind from me, not just because it's by a friend, or because everyone else is commenting on it. I only look at a relatively small proportion of what gets posted (can't imagine how you manage to look at them all!) and so many are just not interesting, either from an SL or artistic point of view. BUT, only not interesting to me, and I do believe everyone has the right to post whatever they want. We, as viewers do, after all, have the right to not look.
My own pictures vary wildly on a day to day basis. I have never claimed to be anything other than an SL resident who likes to capture a moment, a place, or sometimes just pose in my pretty clothes. I don't do anything to my pictures except sometimes crop them, so i certainly would never call myself an artist of any kind. It astounds me sometimes, which photos get the views and the comments. My favourite pictures, the ones I am most proud of, are almost always the ones that get overlooked.
I have been thinking a lot about Flickr comments recently. There is a group of people, whose work I often comment on, who sem to have evolvd into a mutual admiration society and it is starting to make me feel a little uncomfortable. I still admire and view all their work, but comment much less than I used to, and I try very hard not to get drawn into the stuff that invariably comes afterwards. A very good friend said to me the other day, that he was not commenting on my photos any more because he didn't want to be part of the 'Phoenix Fan Club' and this really upset me. I don't want or need a fan club, I would much rather know what people think and how I can improve what I do. I post my pictures for my own personal reasons, not because of anything people may say. I don't buy in to most of what people comment; the ones that mean the most come from friends who actually know what goes on in the mind behind the avatar.
One last word on constructive criticism. I'm not sure you meant it as such, but when you commented on my avatar always looking like she was about to cry, or punch someone (!), I took it as a criticism — which was a very good thing!!! I looked hard at my photos, remembering when and why I took them; looked hard at my avatar thinking about how she has evolved. Then, I spent ages playing with the sliders of her face, trying to get her to smile followed by a session in front of the camera using various poses which make you smile, and, finally, settling for the smile that comes with my XCite lips! And do you know what? I hate that picture LOL But I thank you so much for saying what you did, because it really made me think — about the way I present myself inworld, and the type of photos I take. I truly wish more people would give honest opinions on Flickr (and in many other places) but, sadly, it so often gets taken the wrong way, so people stick to being nice — ugh, I hate that word!!
Sorry for being so long-winded! 
Everyone's so positive (or not negative) in some places and then in others (facebook) they can be so vile: is it that in some forums people feel the need to be 'supportive' and in others they feel the need to degrade?
Carolyn Ann just gave me an idea: Why not set up a 'best of' group. All pictures by invitation only. See, I'm thinking that if you have to moderate the other group then it may not be too much extra work to slap an invitation to the 'best of' on pictures that 'jump out' at you. If it wasn't too big a drag (ho ho) you could comment on the 'best of' group — what makes them good. This might, just might, cause the dross to start thinking, "How come I never get invited to that group — is it because I look like a pig in nickers that's been welded to a radiator?" Meanwhile, the 'best of' group provides shining examples of how it should be done.
(I'll gloss over the fact that it could stifle creativity if people moderate their own styles to me more in line with your particular tastes.)
If you decide this sort of thing is worth a punt, let me offer you one word of caution: On no account should you invite in anything by Siobhan (fucking) Curran — she takes it badly and is likely to get all ranty on yo' ass! 
/me ducks
I think the main problem seems to be this idea that one of the things you do if you are a tranny is take loads of pictures of yourself and then swap them with other trannies. That's the reason flickr is flooded with these photos. An example, yesterday I received an email from someone who had seen my picture on Vicki Renes's site. She said she was a tranny and wanted me to send some more pictures of myself and then she'd reciprocate by sending photos of herself. And that was it. Why? Why should I send her any pictures. I certainly have no interest whatsoever in seeing any photos of her. For many, though, it just seems to be the tranny thing to do and flickr has become the place to do it. It's like an addiction.
As for bad photographs the trouble is not that people take them but that so many don't actually care whether they are good or bad. There is one person who posts untold number of photos of herself — all pretty much identical, all pretty poor, all with a mountain of favourable comments — who confesses proudly that her pictures are totally untouched because she can't be bothered. She's not alone. I mean, I know little or nothing about photography but I do try.
I believe the solution is to allow everyone to dump whatever they like onto flickr itself but make groups a lot stricter. If I were admin of trannyflickr I would reduce submissions to one a week for a start.
@Jo — "Everyone's so positive (or not negative) in some places and then in others (facebook) they can be so vile"
Interesting, yes — you mentioned this the other day.
I find all this curious and interesting, because it relates a lot to some of the stuff we're looking into at work at the moment — ideas about 'community' and 'structure'.
I think in some senses, the initial paramaters — or rather, the initial tone — of a site can define to a certain degree the enagement that its users will take. Flickr, for example, is a particularly chirpy environment — the 'Flickreenies' and the general 'nicey nicey' language of its interface set up a space in which the expectation is that everyone will "play nice".
Within the Second Life group, perhaps, there's also the added feeling of confusion about just what is a 'good' picture. Everything is so new, and the criteria for 'assessment' haven't been established — so perhaps that contributes to the overwhelmingly positive feedback that exists.
"I'm not going to criticise this, because there are no established levels on which to assess what I'm seeing".
Maybe.
Within a group such as trannyflickr, on the other hand, there is an established culture of "support group". People are 'nice' and flattering to compensate — perhaps — for the tide of abuse and unflattering comments that we get in Real Life.
The thing is though, I'm well aware that my perspective on this comes from a very limited engagement with a world outside my little bubble. I don't — despite my intentions of pushing the hitherto unseen world of 'decent' crossdressed self-portraiture (RL or SL) into spaces outside of our 'cocoon' — dip my toes into some of the more mainstream groups.
I'd be very curious to know if the same sorts of things go on in some of the more 'photographic' eschelons of Flickr. Do the 'pros' get critical comments (in amongst all the fan-Wow!s)?
@Phoenix — "My favourite pictures, the ones I am most proud of, are almost always the ones that get overlooked." — yeah, I understand what you're saying, and I agree.
That sense that people — the "Phoenix Fan Club" as your friend wonderfully put it — are commenting just because they feel they should, and should positively can be very demoralising. I know that there are some photos I've posted that I've not been too happy with, yet they garnish the same kind of "Wow!" as the ones I love. And the importance of the feedback on the ones that I love then diminishes.
when you commented on my avatar always looking like she was about to cry, or punch someone (!), I took it as a criticism
Actually, it was more just an emotional response. "Aw, Phoenix always looks so sad. I hope she's OK"
But I must confess, that I did feel a little guilty after posting that — or perhaps not guilty, perhaps more 'worried' that I'd said something without enough textual-indicators so that the intent came across properly (just like Kat said above).
@Carolyn Ann — "pick out the really good shots, and explain why they're good. Pointing out the crap will only annoy more than the individuals you're naming."
Yes, agreed. And actually I want to expand on that a little further later on, because I'd like to tie it into a wider debate on 'transferable authority'. It struck me earlier on this morning that I actually have a fair bit of experience in giving critical feedback to things that are proclaimed as "art" — it is, after all, what I do for a living 
But I want to write about how that then translates from the confines of an Art School, into a virtual space (2D or 3D) — which is a task to keep me occupied on the train this afternoon I feel¹.
@Ali — "Why not set up a 'best of' group. All pictures by invitation only." Ah, I feel that endevours like that have been tried (and in some cases, failed spectacularly) in the past already
But yeah, in some ways I agree — one of the best ways to increase the 'quality' of pools is to have things within them that stand out and scream "YES!". The thing is though, those things need some form of 'recognition' — some stamp of greatness that distinguishable from the backpatting.
And it's very hard to establish that sort of thing.
On no account should you invite in anything by Siobhan (fucking) Curran
This is true I got into trouble for that post...
@Stephanie — "I think the main problem seems to be this idea that one of the things you do if you are a tranny is take loads of pictures of yourself and then swap them with other trannies. [...] it just seems to be the tranny thing to do and flickr has become the place to do it."
Yes, I hadn't thought of it like that. It's almost like it's a great big Pannini (?) album, with swapsies and everything.
"Damm, if I can just get one more picture of Siobhan Curran in a man's suit, I'll have the entire set"
I guess in some ways, this is part of what irritates me in general about the direction things have taken — that instead of pushing things forward, habits (and 'hobbies') have reverted to form, and the new technologies, new social spaces, new agendas have been assimilated by the Old Guard, twisted to fit in to existing models of 'expression', rather than taken boundaries and scribbling all over them.
¹ I forgot to mention, I'm going to London for the weekend, in just under four hours. Must. Write. Post. Explaining. Why.
I have almost given up on flickr, as I've trawled through it looking in vain for anything other than ridiculously over-excited yelps in the comments. There isn't even any constructive criticism that I can find — like,say "hmm, nice, but perhaps you could have got the horizon straight" — except from a small group of friends. I have posted pictures on "invitation-only" groups, but they're just the same. Perhaps an active moderator could vet the comments, and insist on intelligent criticism, but it sounds a lot of work.
When trawling Flickr I never bother to read the comments, I no longer think they're worth the effort. More so in tranny groups than anywhere else. And the huge amount of dross in there makes me wish that people would exercise some self restraint in posting. But then, in my drab Flickr stream, I could be guilty of same, even when I post only what I think are the best.
This goes back to your recent post. The early days of something are great when it's just a small community, but when everyone jumps on the bandwagon, it all goes downhill.
Serena Mayfly
Unfortunately with the democratisation of creation there has not been an accompanying distribution of clue.
Or, to put it another way: Now that anyone and their dog can take pictures, write articles, design 3d spaces and post the end results online a second law has become apparent. That law states that when you don't have a skill (learned or trained) you are unaware of how much you don't know.
Instead, people react positively to things they associate with genuine art or creative expression. Heavy handed filters look a bit like the effects on genuinely evocative photos. Someone posing in a nice skirt looks good because it's a nice skirt and the radiator, poor lighting and uninspired pose are all ignored.
An artist's eye takes in the whole picture, whereas the punters see a particularly nice smile or the idea of something that they aspire to.
Talent and effort have been devalued by mass, free distribution of unmediated 'works'. I'll stop now.
Just gonna add my ha'penny's worth here. I used to "vet" a poetry site and had much the same issue. Poetry doesn't even offer the excuse of "snapshot" that people can apply to Flickr pics, it is supposed to be art to start with, no argument. Trouble is that after the thirtieth tearfully illiterate "poem" in a row, written by yet another recently jilted teenager, you just want to scream "this is not poetry!!!!!". Thing is though that these people have their right to express themselves, and that is perhaps what "art" is mostly about.
The mutual admiration squad may either lack balls or discernment but those who actually want honest feedback will usually spot those capable of giving it and ignore the rest. Diluted? Certainly. Frustrating? God yes! Forgivable? I think so. It's a big world, we all to start somewhere, and we are all out to get something different from it. Some people do just want blind praise. Who are we to deny them that comfort?
Very provocative post. My head is still spinning from all the threads. I agree with many of the points you raise, but I can't offer you and alternative, without defining some kind of restrictive criteria that would have to be applied and yet remain open enough to allow expansion to include innovation. Credentials are not definitive, even in "pro" groups. I graduated art school in the 70s and have made my living from "art" ever since. My "work" is scattered all over the place in terms of resume value; major and minor validation through public and private sectors. What meaning does all that have? Does that qualify me to define art? Not really, I think. It only qualifies me to point out various processes that seem to work for particular circumstances for me. A kind of how to invest my effort/energy.
I often think I know what good work is. But it's much harder to define for someone else. There is still an incredible amount of "shit", (in my opinion), in all the places my own work has been validated by. So such validation doesn't seem to signify much.
As an "educator" for many years as well, I came up against a great lack of basic awareness of the rudimentary principals of various art media in many students willingly working in those media. An almost contemptous attitude, as if it were a great distinction to be totally ingornant. How can you break a boundary creatively if you don't know what the boundaries are?
Alot of it has to do with universal instant gratification through universal instant access. Just press the button and it's all yours.
WOW! that was shit!
With all the shit on this page, does that mean that today was a pile of shit?
Hmmm I posted a comment here yesterday and it seems to have gone, did you delete it (cos' it was shit) or did I do something wrong and it never actually got sent.
The main point was that there is a difference between 'expression' and 'art'. Everyone is free to present and express themselves in what ever way they want, but only the response of an audience makes it art. You once referred to the 'sense of audience' you get, well lots of people are discovering that now and loving it, but the trouble is most have no act. Most people would agree 'Hamlet' is art, how about 'Eastenders'?, 'Big Brother'?
I also suggested a cut down version of Ali's idea, instead of an invite only group why not select one picture from your groups each week to be the 'Official Photo of the Week' with a comment stating why. True it would be more work for you but would give you the opportunity to critique and inform.
Kate Weston
This post really bothered me for a while and I wasn't sure why. then I realised it was quite obvious, its because I'm guilty of a lot of what you criticise. I post shit and I post positive feedback to other shit. I'm always happy to recieve criticism (as long as its constructive) and try to be constructively critical if someone asks me to be, but I often fall into the trap of posting photos I know aren't that good (or just plain shite) because I feel I need to proove to the world that I got all glammed up and took some photos. If someone leaves something positive to say then I'll happily take that praise, even when I know its undeserved, and that does bother me, even makes me feel a bit of a hypocrite for not replying saying its crap after all. I also have to admit that I sometimes post praises in others photos simply because they may have put something on mine and I feel I owe them a compliment (although in most posts on flickr, I do genuinelky mean what I say).
I'm not sure why I feel the need to say this and admit my sins, but nevermind. I think most flickr users (or other equivalent sites) are at times quilty of 'shit approving', as phoney and fake as it can be, its better than just being wankers and unfair to people trying their best.
Actually, I'm kind of glad you haven't. You'd be at it an awfully long time, 'cause it wouldn't be fair to leave anyone out. The other day, somebody asked me, "How come you're not in any of the trannie' groups on Flickr?". My answer (abbreviated): "Because all the disingenuous, misplaced, back-slapping makes me want to hurl." Don't you think though, that it's all to easy for a bunch of people to slip into a feedback loop; each one 'wowing' the others work, not for its quality, but to ensure their own work gets 'wowed' in return? And then there's those who 'wow' purely to encourage further posts, thus ensuring a continuing supply of their favourite fantasy fix...
I feel like I should be coming to some sort of conclusion here, but it's hard to pin down...
I guess; you can't say, "This is shite" unless you do it even-handedly and consistently; but life's too short and there's too much shit!