![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sg_fignewton is hosting a Gen Fic Day this coming Sunday - fics, commentfics, recs – anything, so long as it's gen. Hug a gen fan! Next week I am going to see the Tutankhamun exhibition, woohoo! I can't wait. Canopic jars here I come.
And I'm in a thinky mood lately, and at the moment it's about advertising vs. information and discussion of interesting and relevant topics. What do you consider to be advertising, and where do you draw a line? If you were on an art history comm, say, and someone started talking about the paintings they did, copies of classic Impressionist paintings - would you think that was relevant to the comm? Or, how about if the artist did those paintings for a company that commercially produced artworks for sale - would you be more interested in hearing about their thoughts on Cézanne? Would you think the art history comm should allow the artist to describe their art, or post pictures of a commerically-for-sale collection of their and their colleagues' paintings and suggest that people might want to acquire them? Would you expect the artist to choose a post such as "Please talk about the work you produce here" as a place to post their comment, or would you think it was acceptable in any post that mentioned, say, Impressionist art?
Just curious.
p.s. This is NOT about anyone on my flist! Or, for that matter, anyone on my friends' flists.
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
holdouttrout.livejournal.com : (no subject) [+2] - vickyocean.livejournal.com : (no subject) [+1]
- sg1danny.livejournal.com : (no subject) [+1]
- aurora-novarum.livejournal.com : (no subject) [+1]
- lavenderlocks.livejournal.com : Sorry for just barging in [+3]
- stargazercmc.livejournal.com : (no subject) [+1]
- abyssinia4077.livejournal.com : (no subject) [+0]
Designed by chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
I think you could say that a small comment about the works someone does might be relevant in certain situations, but, uh...the more details you added, the less likely it seems that that's what's happening here.
I am interested in the work people do - but I don't necessarily want to hear about a painting I can buy when I'm discussing my favourite Cézannes - however nice a painting it may or may not be. Perhaps I'm not interested in buying reproduction paintings - or I'd rather paint my own ones. That's not to say I'm not interested in discussing painting, in the right time and place.
If the were talking about copying famous art works and what they learned by copying them then I would be all for it. Artists have been copying other's works for ages in order to learn techniques for ages. We did that in both my drawing and painting classes. You really do learn a lot that you may not have considered if hadn't tried to replicate it. That could be an interesting discussion for an art history comm.
On the other hand if they're trying to sell their reproductions, I would say that probably doesn't have a place on a discussion comm.
I also wouldn't think an Art History comm wouldn't be the place to share your own art work. Surely there are comms that are all about sharing artists' work amongst it's members. I don't think it would be a huge deal if someone posted a link to their Esty shop just as an FYI with the pic of their art work in such a art sharing comm.
It does sort of annoy me when the same person constantly advertises on a comm. In several of the kimono comms I belong to someone keeps posting ads with with nothing but a big pic of the store's logo on about a weekly basis. It ends up in about 3 or 4 comms and as far as I can tell they mostly have Korean stuff and very few kimono goods at all. I get so sick of seeing it.
So that's my long convoluted opinion. : )
It does sort of annoy me when the same person constantly advertises on a comm.
Absolutely. I think it's bad manners. Like you say, talking about what you've learnt from copying a painting is an old, established tradition, and completely fascinating - and would be suitable for an art history comm discussion on, say, "How have you interpreted artwork from history?"
But if the post is voting for the comm's top-ten favourite Cezanne paintings, you don't ignore the vote, and comment, "Oh, I love 'Still life with apples and oranges', it had such an impact on Cubism - I did a reproduction of it in this collection of art for sale, plus there's a lovely interpretation of Picasso in there, and some nice Whistlers." And post a picture of the collection. Particularly if it's the first thing you've posted to the comm, and previously you've not been involved in the discussions about art history.
Mentioning something once, in a post asking for people's work - that might be acceptable. Although I think that would depend on whether the post was asking for professional work that's for sale, or amateur work that's available for anyone to see and enjoy. I think there's a big difference.
That's my long, convoluted reply. *g*
I belong to a couple and it does piss me off if someone starts talking about something they are working on. Have to say they do get slapped down and told that the comm isn't the place to discuss it.
I saw the King Tut exhibit when it was in Edinburgh 30 odd years ago. I still have vivid memories of it to this day.
Enjoy! Oh, and check out the markings on the Canopic jars. Just, you know, make sure there aren't any Goa'ulds lurking in there ;)
I'm glad it seems like I'm not being overly sensitive about this. I think people shouldn't assume it's okay to start talking about their artwork, as and when. Particularly not stuff for sale. If it's stuff that is amateur, and free for anyone (like some artwork you've done online - wallpaper or icons or something), by all means provide links or whatever - but in the right place, i.e. a post that has a heading of "Please feel free to let us know about your own artwork here". But if it's stuff that you're expecting people to pay money to get - no. Not unless it's an agreed part of the comm. That's like asking the comm to endorse your product, however tacitly (by not removing the post).
It's amazing how many things of intricate design are still so well preserved over the millenia that are made of *wood*.
And yes, when I saw references to Osiris and other
goa'uldEgyptian gods, I smiled.I know they shill a lot of things in the gift shops, but if they've got the dvd of the exhibit there, I think that's well worth it. Close up pics of a lot of the exhibit items with further explanations of them. (Er, and I have no commercial interest in pimping this. ;-) I just got it as my own souvenir and was pleased).
You already know my feelings on the other topic.
I went to the Tutankhamun exhibition in November, and it was just lovely. I don't know how much you already know, or how much you want to be spoiled; am happy to tell you everything! Definitely worth it. :)
No sensible comment for the other stuff!!
*barges out*
I kind of know some stuff about it already - I've been interested in Egyptian stuff for a long time, way before I was into Stargate, so I've read up about him. And I've been to his tomb, in Egypt. *preens* But tell me anything I should look out for - I don't mind 'spoilers' for an exhibition. :)
Very plush and swanky design, lots of video clips of original footage from digs, and photos from the Victorian? excavations. Holograms(!) and video narrated by Omar Sharif.
There are I think 11 rooms with exhibits, and you walk through several Dynasties before reaching the Tut rooms. It's all so well preserved and interesting, and you get enough time to examine every cabinet.
If I recall correctly, it took us just under 2 hours start to finish and we weren't rushing.
The only thing, it's upstairs and downstairs, but there are lifts and seats for those that tire easily!
Hope that's whetted the appetite a bit more. I only have a small passing love for Ancient Egypt, but that exhibition was a wonderful representation without hours of flying, heat, and flies!
I forgot the most wacky thing - one of the effigies of Tut had me giggling like a loon. I think I discovered where Michael (not Daniel) Jackson got his look! I'll say no more....
I can see a casual reference (something like, "I learned a lot about the style of the impressionists when I worked for X since they specialized in look-alikes.") but an outright pitch?
Not cool.
Have fun at the exhibit! Don't become a Goa'uld!