for thought

A favourite quote from an amazing novel:

“for every radiant coincidence
there are a thousand dull discrepancies”

The Possibility of an Island, Michel Houellebecq

sunrise 22Mar16

Social media musings

There have been many grumblings about the changes to Instagram lately. I would probably pay more attention if I used it more than I do – I use it with enthusiasm to see other people’s things, but not so much to publish my own. I’m a content consumer, less a content maker.

I’ve recently been having some thoughts on how Instagram is being used by makers and galleries …

I like to follow my favourite makers and galleries and pages via both Facebook and Instagram. I think that showing support – genuine support of course, not the if-I-like-you-I-expect-you-to-like-me kind of faux-support – is an important part of acknowledging the amazingness of others and for building a community of like-minded people.

However I do get a bit jaded when I see the same image repeated on both platforms.

My own personal rule is to (try to) only publish unique images to Instagram – images that are not repeated on my blog (linked to my Facebook page), though more often than not they’re related to a story on the blog.

Have Instagram users found that they have a remarkably different interaction with their images on Facebook compared to Instagram? Perhaps that’s why the repetition/replication is worthwhile – perhaps the audience is quite different, and those of us who are duplicated (ie. interacting with both platforms) are in the minority.

No doubt marketing experts will tell me that repetition is more valuable than unique images – that the fact that I notice the duplication is the whole point, for recognising the image is proving that I’m paying more attention to that maker / gallery / image.

I’m such a light-weight user of Instagram for the purposes of this blog that the changes in that respect may not impact me. However as an avid reader of other people’s feed, the changes probably will annoy me.

Do you know what other platforms are being moved to in reaction?

Oh dear Pantone

Is it just me, or are Pantone colours for 2016 just a bit …. erm …. ?

from Pantone website; click on image for original source

I don’t mind the colours themselves. Actually I quite like them.

Though I mind the justification of their selection (the first time Pantone has selected two colours as ‘colour of the year’).

“The prevalent combination of Rose Quartz and Serenity also challenges traditional perceptions of color association.

In many parts of the world we are experiencing a gender blur as it relates to fashion, which has in turn impacted color trends throughout all other areas of design. This more unilateral approach to color is coinciding with societal movements toward gender equality and fluidity, the consumer’s increased comfort with using color as a form of expression, a generation that has less concern about being typecast or judged and an open exchange of digital information that has opened our eyes to different approaches to color usage.”

Really? Are Pantone not simply reinforcing ‘traditional perceptions’ by choosing these two to represent ‘gender’? Or is it just me, and my ‘traditional perceptions’ are getting in the way?

It’s not what it is

I was at a dear friend’s home recently. He was playing music that was completely out of character. It may have been doof-doof-like, if memory serves. I remarked how surprised I was by this. He explained it was by … erm, someone-or-other … collaborating with one of his most esteemed most favourite musicians. I protested, but still, it’s doof-doof-like, why listen to it. To which he proclaimed: “it’s not what it is, it’s who does it“.

Ooh, contentious.

Naturally I disagreed most heartily.

Then gave it more thought … if I do like a lot of the work of a particular artist (say), I’m probably more likely to give new (or previously unseen) work consideration (or leeway) that I may not give to an unknown artist if they produced the same object. Though I’m pretty sure it’d not make my opinion change from ‘not connecting with’ to ‘connecting with’.

I wonder if we could test the impact of this attitude in the jewellery (art) world … perhaps we could have a group exhibition with no artist names displayed on pieces? I’m imagining:

• before you even enter the space you’re asked to fill in a questionnaire, ticking your most favourite two/three artists of those listed (the list being those in the show) … though this is a bit tricky, as it does ‘prime’ you (in psychology parlance); it would work best if the pieces are new or unusual in the artists’ oeuvre
• then you enter the space, enjoying yourself, probably recognising pieces if they’re typical of the artists
• after you’ve looked at all, you’re asked to identify the two/three pieces you most connected with
• then the names of the artists are revealed
• … how would this then impact your choice of favourites?
• … would you revise that if you found there was a piece by your favourite artist that you didn’t recognise?

Interesting.