A strange title huh? Our shared society is pretty strange as well. While I am not shy about opening my big mouth and possibly irritating the masses or in this day and age about half of any particular group I don't typically engage in commenting on the sensational controversial topic/person/subject/politics/etc of the day. Sure fire link bait - absolutely. Will bring tons of traffic - too bad I want nothing to do with that particular audience that searches for such things. Also it's extremely dangerous - most of the content posted riding one controversy or the other masquerades as as some sort of objective information source - ambulance chasers for sure. The more risqué (sarcasm for those non-native english speakers/readers) come out with a very strong opinion as soon as it's safe to jump on a particularly correct side of the fence. This is the way to go if you want to generate "conversation" of the meaningless "yes I agree - you go girl kind".
Okay - so you can probably tell I am more than a bit upset with this kind of thought process. Not upset enough to title the post with the actual controversial key words. I saw a post today that I agree with generally on an extremely popular photography website - they generate tons of traffic with trivial link bait. Some of it as described above - some of it sort of with the same old same old "Top 6 secrets to making sensational images of anything without even trying" kind of content-free articles - you substitute the actual number of secrets and the actual subject.
So since I agree with the article's premise why does it get me a bit peeved? Well, as usual it pretends to offer an opinion but doesn't. Instead it offers link bait that falls on the non-correct side of current mob-think political correctness bullshit and then doesn't actually take a position. How boring, how useless, how no-shit.
Topic at hand… controversial photographer of the moment. Actually continually controversial photographer on varying cycles but we are in a cycle. Who? Terry Richardson. The controversial part is actually probably part of is publicist's or self-made plan if I had to guess. I have no clue, I don't know him. Never met him. I don't particularly gravitate to his vision either from a commercial product or a personal work perspective. I have no criticisms of his work nor him personally. So what's my beef…
In a nutshell the echo chamber of polarization and era of correctness does two things that I just cannot stand. It creates an environment where it's easy to manipulate huge masses of audience with stupid "correctness" or "in-correctness" shit. None of it actually means anything nor moves any conversation forward in any way. In fact it makes it downright scary to offer any kind of actual discussion of any intellectual value on just about any subject. In my opinion this especially has no place in art. The "this" being correct-ness or lack thereof. Opinions and tastes and likes and dislikes are just fine with me - when they become righteous statements of correctness that's another matter completely.
So that name Terry Richardson - you thought that was the controversial topic that shouldn't be. Well it is but just so you get your money's worth here's another one I will leave you with. On subjects even remotely like this - actually on just about any subject aside from murder and obvious/simple things - if your personal opinion/taste happens to have a bit more than even a tiny bit of "correctness" behind it that supports your logic or feeling you aren't actually thinking. You're just easy to manipulate one way or another.