Whilst I can clearly see some of the potential benefits of Web 2.0 platforms as a professional tool, I have to admit to having slightly mixed feelings about the benefits of them in my industry, acting. As I read the Professional Communications Technology reader, the question that kept popping into my head was 'democratic or damaging?'. It raised lots of issues that I was keen to discuss with other performers, so I have spent the last few days quizzing my friends and acquaintances about their own experiences....
It seems nearly all actors have a bone to pick with the dreaded internet review sites! One friend in particular recently had an experience whereby a show she was in got fantastic reviews across the board, all bar one, which wasn't in a national newspaper or even written by a 'proper' theatre critic, but an unknown reviewer on an internet site. The article criticised her very personally and she was worried it could be potentially damaging. Now don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of members of the public having their say about what they enjoy, but, I could see her point.
The 'reviewer' in question did not seem to be experienced or qualified enough to distinguish between directoral/production/acting choices and as a result his comments were really quite unfair. But there the comments were for all to see, and there was nothing she could do about it! (In the spirit of embracing Web 2.0 platforms and as a friend, I couldn't resist leaving a comment on the review site saying I strongly disagreed.)
So....all in all, this week has made me think much more deeply about O'Reilly's concept of 'radical trust' mentioned in the reader and it's something I would certainly like to explore further. I'd be really interested to hear whether anyone else has any stories to share along these lines....
www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228
Professional Communications Technologies have certainly transformed the way we interact, promote and learn. The notion of democracy is one worth unraveling more. Knowledge and wisdom (or is it information and opinion) appear more dispersed, but is it deep enough? Certainly it seems that once the box of technologies is open and they have got out - we cannot put them back.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this very interesting post.
ReplyDeleteOne of the great things about web2.0 is it precisely challenges us to think about and question its value, individually, collectively and in a myriad of contexts.
Can Web2.0 be at times both democratising AND damaging? ... or neither democratising or damaging? My take on Web2.0 is that like other technologies, it will be used in every sphere of human activity, for learning, for enjoyment, for crime, for oppression, for freedom.
I guess one question that comes out of this is 'How do I use it now, how will I experiment with it, and what are the limits I will place upon it?
Very interesting comments you have put forward here, I never thought of Web 2.0 in this way before and what negotive effect it has on our careers.
ReplyDeleteThis has really put into perspective the privacy setting I may impose on my own Web 2.0 pages.
I feel in regards to the comments left about the reveiws of your friends play and I do agree to an extent but I do feel everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I wonder would this comment had been made by a Professional critic would if have been seen in a different way?
I think it's about extracting the useful comments and often you will find the people that troll have no substantial constructive criticism anyway. We as the user have to make a decision as to whether the information has any real truth. A review was written about an RPG, not only did this review have several spelling mistakes but the reviewer had missed the point of the game entirely and was left looking rather foolish. Somebody then took this review and made a rather cunning song out of all his mistakes receiving thousands of hits on you tube. He had a platform to voice his opinion like everyone but not everyone’s opinion is important.
ReplyDelete