18 comments

• 

  conniecrosby

  4 months ago

  You seem to have captured the essence of what happened. I was there and have been chiming in on the various discussions. I agree with you, Mathew--folks seem to be digging in their heals when really I don't think they are that diametrically opposed if we look at it closely.
  
  I do find it fascinating. Jill Golick no doubt set out to provoke a reaction, at least on some level. What she didn't count on was, in return, being provoked herself.
  
  It is fascinating how it is playing out, how we are still figuring out how to exist with each other in the electronic spaces.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  4 months ago

  Thanks, Connie. I think you are right that we are still figuring a
  lot of this out -- and in fact, this kind of thing has been going on
  since the Internet was invented (which wasn't really that long ago,
  when you think about it).
  
  I found it interesting that Jill mentioned in her original post how
  she thought Facebook used to be just kind of fun thing for students
  but has become more professional and business-like, and how that might
  have led to some of the negative reaction from people.
  reply
• 

  Bargainista

  4 months ago

  Thank you for writing such an eloquent post about this issue.
  
  I do have one point of clarification. I hardly think I have enough influence to have caused the deletion of the profiles of Jill's characters. Facebook had representation at the event as well. I haven't had any dealings with Facebook or their representatives.
  
  Regardless, I think there is a much bigger issue at stake here. I am saddened that at events like CaseCamp we are unable to ask questions without creating firestorms and personal attacks. These events exist to help us learn from one another. Life isn't always warm and fuzzy. Part of the learning process is being able to discuss issues and think critically about new ideas in a mature manner. If we can't do that anymore, what's the point?
  reply
• 

  Bargainista

  4 months ago

  FYI, I want to ensure everyone I, Eden Spodek am the person registered with Disqus under the name "Bargainista". It's the name of my blog and I often comment wearing that hat. My identity is fully disclosed on my blog.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  4 months ago

  Thanks for clarifying that, Eden -- I didn't mean to suggest that you
  got the characters deleted from Facebook, only that the two events
  happened more or less concurrently. And I agree with you that
  something like CaseCamp should be a forum where issues like this can
  be debated openly and honestly, otherwise what is the point of having
  it in the first place?
  reply
• 

  jill380

  4 months ago

  I'd like to disclose that I was thrilled to meet Bargainista in person, although I didn't know it was her till much later. I wish she had disclosed her fictional identity to me at CaseCamp but alas reality is such a tricky thing.
  
  And Connie, I wasn't intending to provoke, I was playing and trying to give some folks a laugh. Provoking was just an unanticipated bonus.
  reply
• 

  Bargainista

  4 months ago

  Funny.
  
  If you visit the blog, you'll know. My picture is there along with various other profiles including LinkedIn. I also have another alter ego. Her name is Paradise Wunderland and sometimes she can be found in Second Life. I'm upfront about that too. I'm Eden Spodek on twitter and Facebook, but you probably already knew that. ;)
  
  I hope we can continue the discussion in a respectful manner.
  reply
• 

  ryancoleman

  4 months ago

  I see both sides of the coin and was sitting behind Eden (& next to someone with an even stronger reaction).
  
  I wasn't bothered by it but there was a difference between myself and Eden... I'd encountered the story before and discovered the Facebook profiles as part of meandering through the "story".
  
  Where I think Jill screwed up, and I told her this later, was having the characters proactively "friend" people on facebook who we're not engaged in the story. When people got the friend invite, many of them checked to see if they had mutual friends & many did because many people who were engaged in the story had Added the characters as friends.
  
  The difference though, was that the engaged people ADDED proactively - rather than an unsolicited, uncontextualized invitation.
  reply
• 

  Bargainista

  4 months ago

  Ryan, The only difference in our experience was that my first introduction to this story was a friend request from Ali Barrett. I'm in total agreement with you.
  
  Eden
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  4 months ago

  I think that's a good point, Ryan.
  reply
• 

  Leigh

  4 months ago

  To repeat what comments I made directly onto Eden's post...I think as marketers our job is creating fiction every day. Dove = self esteem . Yeah sure 'tever.
  
  I think this entire thing is over the top. We shouldn't be applying notions of corporate transparency and that type of misrepresentation (walmart flog etc.) to an art project. They aren't even close to the same thing.
  
  Oh well, at the very least, one can say the experiment did it's job. Art after all, is not only meant to match your furniture, its larger role is social change and commentary. Whether you like it or hate it, the fact that it made you think makes it in my mind a resounding success.
  reply
• 

  David Jones

  4 months ago

  Leigh has hit it on the head. This is art. It's challenging conventions, the rules of a medium, causing us to examine social constructs. I left a comment on Eden's post on Onedegree.ca, that I'll paraphrase here.
  
  All media eventually get to the intersection of the medium itself, art/content and commerce. It's always an uneasy relationship, but it's ultimately the users of the medium who determine what they demand from it and what they reject.
  
  I'm disappointed, but not surprised that the "creative community" has reacted so viscerally and resorted to cliched name-calling and stereotyping. There is a need for discussion and debate with the people who are shaping this medium. All are welcome.
  David Jones
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  4 months ago

  Thanks for the comment, David. And thanks to everyone for not using
  the term "fucktard" even once :-)
  reply
• 

  tamera kremer

  4 months ago

  I can agree with most of the take regarding it being "art", but with a serious caveat, which is why I reacted as strongly as I did about the proactive and deceptive Facebook friending: Story2oh is a commercial enterprise that I would find it hard to believe didn't develop this project with the sole altruistic purpose of entertaining the masses. Most likely, as their appearance at an advertising industry event, was to execute this story in order to get clients. That may be art, it may not, I think it's interesting and provocative, but in most ARG's (which is what this is a version of) I choose willingly to participate, which was not the case with Ali Barrett (who I did research a bit as both Eden and you mention).
  reply
• 

  leigh

  4 months ago

  "Art" doesn't mean one shouldn't make money. There are many people who consider themselves artists and and attempt to make a living from it. If they can, frankly, more power to 'em. But I'm not sure that's the make it or break it point.
  
  I think the point is applying marketing and business practices the same way we do to large brands and corporations when it comes to "transparency" and other blah de blah we love to tout in the new media space to an individual and her experimental art project is unreasonable.
  
  I thought Brendan Laraby, (want to be paid TV writer one day according to his blog profile), had a very thoughtful post on it -
  http://aboyandhistvshow.blogspot.com/2008/05/di...
  reply
• 

  tamera kremer

  4 months ago

  Agree and disagree. Art directors who are pushing the envelope for paid client work could make the argument that they are creating commercial art. Same with this art, if the ultimate goal was to build a client base. Nothing wrong with that, but there are rules of engagement online, and within the norms of a community, and one of the key ones is (and has been for a long-time): opt-in & be transparent. that didn't happen here, therefore the experiment failed with some users and with some people who would prefer not to be deceived in their social interactions, especially when it's then clear that this was done to gain a client base for their content creation business.
  reply
• 

  tamera kremer

  4 months ago

  Mathew, the more I think about this the more it takes me back to the character blog debate at the first mesh... perhaps time to revisit with the various viewpoints represented from the business, art, and communications sides? :)
  reply
• 

  Bargainista

  4 months ago

  Tamera, that's an excellent idea! I still have vivid memories of that debate when Steve Rubel was giving the keynote presentation. Maybe if representatives from the various sides could remain civil, it would make an interesting panel discussion. If not Mesh, then perhaps the next CaseCamp.
  reply