Umbrae said:
On the other hand…
EVEN IF I personally dislike the artwork – I cannot share that opinion, my review will not get published.
There is artwork that some of us find horrid – but even as a group, we are not allowed to speak honestly…for fear of hurting the poor artist's feelings.
…and although I may disagree with the ‘reviewer’s opinion’ in this instance – I must defend his right to share his opinion.
- and if you ask, I'l call it like I see it.
And on even another hand ....
I think there is a knee jerk reaction against the "evil" of censorship. People are often complaining that they are either censored from saying what they really think, or at least made to feel uncomfortable if they do so, because of hurting someone's feelings. Let me get that right. People don't like being made to feel uncomfortable or restricted here on aeclectic because the person whose work that they think is crap and should have the right to say so, might be reading it? Hmmm, yes I can see that might be annoying.
So what's the answer?
Lets consider things in context.
The internet is a wonderful opportunity for good and bad. Many decks get rejected by the main publishers, so artists who may have spent years on their project, have an option to self publish or at least share their work on line. Likewise some reviews also don't get published on more public forums for whatever reason, yet the reviewer who may have spent half an hour on their "obra" also have the options of sharing their contribution to the tarot world via personal blogs etc.
I keep hearing the same tired argument that if an artist put their work out there, then they have to accept whatever reaction is thrown at them. Well that should apply to reviewers and critics as well. Why shouldn't their reviews be equally open to criticism in return. (as is the case on this particular thread). Especially if the reviewers own credentials are suspect or unknown. This treasured freedom of speech should be applied in both directions surely.
So what's the answer.? Well I don't actually know exactly, but some kind of balance surely? Of course negative reviews should be permitted (I honestly hadn't realized that they weren't). Likewise with individual postings. Nevertheless, Yes I am glad that there is a degree of censorship on sites like Aeclectic, although I'd call it common sense "filtering". Because without it, we'd have every wannabe radio shock jock of the tarot world spouting all kinds of comments just because the could.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even in your harshest critique, I'll assume your purpose is honest objectivity etc etc etc. But I can assure you not every new age contributor is as warm and fuzzy as you suggested in your post. Some most certainly would have other agendas in their comments. To allow every one complete freedom to say whatever, especially when they can do so anonymously is a recipe for disaster. The comments themselves and presumably the responses they would elicit would be distasteful, the discussions so heated that ultimately it would put off so many members that the viability of forums such as this would be jeopardized. So lets be careful what we wish for.
So, you may ask, who gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Well in this case ultimately Solandia. And in that seemingly undemocratic role lies true democracy. Because anyone who feels limited by her structure of this forum can simply ignore it and go to others that offer an environment more akin to theirs, or even better start their own forum.
A bit like buying tarot decks no matter how good or bad, there's a choice.
