On political moderation, the founding of communities and deviantART’s current situation

EXTREMISM IN ART, NOT IN POLITICS.


1. Introduction

Although I had been planning on writing a journal on death and art (as if I could say anything about the issue!), the current situation at dA has moved me to try to say something about the ----sometimes---- very immoderate debate which has taken over our community. Some think it is a personal debate between “jark” and “spyed” ; both of whom I do not even know. But, more accurately, it is about TWO VISIONS of what a community is; only SECONDARILY about two young individuals.

Perhaps the single most important point that moved me to express my thoughts on this issue was a journal by jark which spoke of threats, both physical and verbal, to administration/staff members. This is VERY dangerous, and can only be stopped, I think, if we become clearer ----as leaders and as a community---- about what may lie behind the founding of a community. I DO NOT pretend to know the complexity of the history of dA, I DO NOT pretend to know many things about these specific founders, I DO NOT pretend to know everything about political foundations, but I HAVE read much about foundations and about founders. This is the reason why I have decided to write this very incomplete journal in an attempt to understand our current dilemma. The core tentative questions which guide this incomplete journal, are: if we think about the founding of a community, what can we learn about the deep emotions which come to the fore once the foundation is threatened? Can a community subsist if the members loose all moderation? What is the role of leaders in the founding of a community? Why do leaders continually emphasize their sacrifice for the community? What is the role of leaders in the founding of a peculiar society, namely, that of artists? Is the foundation of a community more connected to myth, or rather to an absolute truth we can somehow reach? Is righteous indignation the solid basis for the health of a community?”

In times of crisis, perhaps, the single most important activity we can dedicate ourselves to, is to THINK about what is going on. For instance, think back at a crisis you had and how you wish you had thought much more about the issue beforehand. But, it seems to me, those involved in the dilemma itself are so touched by deep emotions ---–specially the desire for recognition, and righteous indignation------ that they can hardly stay FOCUSED on the issue. This very incomplete journal, which I have written faster that I would have liked to, might help at least some of us become a bit more clear-headed.

The words that sparked this journal are:

“Update 1: Please, for the love of all of humanity, do not do anything physical to anyone. Various reports of people making phone calls to staff members and leaving verbal threats to reports of assorted violence need to cease. Do not do anything that is not considered diplomatic, intelligent and mature. PLEASE! Rioting and violence solves nothing.” [link]

If I can do anything to make this situation change, at least minimally, I will. This is my very imperfect and dangerous attempt at doing so. If you come across this journal I would recommend reading my previous journals to understand the political philosophy behind my writings; specially -----in this situation--- the journal on Graffiti which brings closer the artist and the city.

2. The Founding of Rome

Anyone who knows any “history”, knows about the myth behind the founding of Rome. Here is the story. It’s a bit long, but I think it is worth it. You may perhaps see why later on:

“The legend of Rome's origin would have been poorer if the gods had had no role in it. Mars (who will always be the most important god for Romans) had two sons with Rea Silvia,. By this birth Rea Silvia had, as a priestess, severely offended both Vesta and the common customs of the time. Therefore Amulius ordered a servant to kill the newborn twins Romulus and Remus. The servant, lacking the stomach for the deed, put them in a bag that he left in the Tiber, to be carried away and drowned. The twin brothers were transported by the river and washed up on the shore in a place that, curiously, the legends don't specify. Here they were saved by a female wolf who nursed them (this wolf, Lupa, is still now one of main symbols of Rome).
Nearby, in a poor dwelling, lived an old shepherd Eldon and his wife Acca Larentia. The shepherd found the babies, brought them home, and adopted them. When they had grown to adulthood, the brothers were informed of their history, so they went back to Albalonga, killed Amulius, and freed their grandfather Numitor.
Romulus and Remus started planning a new town in the same place in which they had been found by Lupa. They decided that one of them would build a town and the other would help. So they went questioning the gods, asking for signs (presumably from the flight patterns of birds) that would tell them who should lead. Another version of the tale says that they had a competition to be won by the brother who saw more birds (or more birds of some species).
Romulus went to the top of Palatine hill, Remus to the top of Aventine. Romulus became convinced that he had been selected by the gods, or that he had seen more birds, so he casually threw his lance on the hill to find the place; when in the ground, the lance (which was wooden) immediately became the corniolus, a sacred tree in Rome.

With the help of a white cow and a white bull, he then used his plough to trace the square borders of his town, following the traditional Etruscan ceremony. Remus outrageously crossed this line, invading Romulus's area and happily saying, "Can you see how easy it is?" Romulus killed him with one blow of his sword, declaring that everyone who dared to offend Rome would pay with his life.” . [link]

For other, similar myths, think of the founding myths of your own country and think about how these myths become part of the very identity of your community. Think, for instance, of the idea behind the “Founding Fathers” of a nation. Or if you are Canadian, think about how differently the foundation myth has been understood. So much so, the country has almost broken up two times! If you are Colombian, think of the 1991 Constitution. And ask yourself, how close are these myths to the REAL truth? Does it even make sense to speak of the REAL truth here? Why say this?

The story of the foundation of Rome is a METAPHOR about the founding of communities. ALL the founders of dA -------be they 1, 2, 3, or 1000, yellow, black or blue------, as well as their friends and families, should do well in reading and reflecting upon this famous story. This story is a MYTH, not a reality which happened or will happen. I cannot but emphasize this precisely because of the passions which I have lately seen expressed here in dA. In other words, Romulus and Remus did NOT exist; no murder ACTUALLY took place.

The complexity of a founding should be acknowledged and understood by the founders of dA. Instead of ONLY seeking out lawyers, viable economic models, and dividing the community, they should think, first, about what founding means, and second, about their responsibilities as leaders. The story of the founding of Rome speaks ------among MANY other things--- of the dangerous desire to be remembered as THE founder of a community; it speaks of the dangers behind such a politically-oriented desire. Not all of us have this desire to be remembered constantly; this is what the founders of dA must remember. They should ask themselves, why do they have such a strong desire? We admire founders, but we would admire them more if they become more reflective about their own DEEP desires for recognition. To this we shall return below. But I fear this question will be met with anger and cries for justice instead.

dA is certainly no Rome, but it is a truly a GREAT community ---to which I am thankful beyond words---- a community which can be severely hampered if SOME moderation does not set in quickly among artistic deviants.

3. A Moderate Manifesto: Extremism in Art, not in Politics.

The following is a manifesto for moderation.

1. Moderates want ---like everybody else--- some kind of public discussion of the truth. BUT moderates understand that the foundation of a community is in LARGE part a myth. What each of the founders remembers,. will be very different. Usually there is no actual “moment” of foundation, but an interpretation by those who were there at the time. If there were, then there would be no debate! Don’t believe me? Well look at how our founders remember very DIFFERENT things:

This is spyed’s "myth":

“I was the first person to work on deviantART full time in 2002, and am also the only co-founder who took the risk of working with no salary at all. That is how much I believe in this community. I have dedicated my life to it. The other two co-founders have never worked fulltime on deviantART. They have always had either college, or a full-time job to contend with. Without question, especially in the early to mid parts of deviantART's life, Scott (°jark) sacrificed all of his available free time. And this was a significant sacrifice.” [link]

In contrast, this is jark's "myth":

“It is imperative that I point out there are two true founders of deviantART. It was matteo and myself who truly founded deviantART. We were with the community on the front lines, and working feverishly behind the scenes. Anything that you hear to the contrary should be summarily dismissed as deceit.
[link]

In this same respect, think of how many times we look into our own past in a very peculiar way: things which were TRULY horrible (we were seriously abused) do not SEEM that horrible to US (we think: the abuse was not THAT bad!); and things which where not THAT great (I won a cheap metal medal) seem FANTASTIC to us ( I am a genius because I won a medal!). So, if anyone wants THE ABSOLUTE truth about this particular founding, then chances are they will be constantly disappointed. This is dangerous because their righteous indignation will continually explode. Justice will overrun friendship. But this does not mean we don’t want the BEST AND MOST SERIOUS approximation to what the founders can actually remember and did.

Another way to have a feel for this, is to think about actual political communities, not simply the one’s which exist in cyberspace. The myth which underlies the unconscious identity of a community primarily comes into question when war arises. This is why understanding the myth becomes ABSOLUTELY crucial; it might be the means to moderate the tension and provide SOME decent approximations between conflicting parties. In one of my latest readings this is exemplified by the dramatic situation lived in the Balkans after the collapse of Yugoslavia. As Hedges writes;

“By finding our identity and meaning in the separateness of the myth serves another important function; It makes communicating with our opponent impossible. It does not matter what they say, just as it did not matter what the Serb or Croat nationalist said to each other; the intentions of the other were predetermined by the nationalist myth” (pg. 24 Hedges, Chris War is a force that gives us meaning)

Of course dA is not A NATIONALIST community, but perhaps we can learn a bit from these stories we know all too well. Consequently, the LEADERS of this community ---be they in the staff or NOT---- must acknowledge their tendency to redescribe the past in a mythical manner.

2. Moderates are against ALL physical AND verbal violence directed to staff members, or ANY other deviant. But moderates understand that the founding is an EMOTIONAL affair. Consequently it was absolutely NAÏVE of the DIFFERENT leaders of this community not to see the consequences of taking drastic measures and expecting to have little emotional consequences over the whole community, This has been , perhaps , the BIGGEST mistake in all this affair. I repeat the founding has an emotional force, and this force is ----I honestly believe----- tripled if the community is precisely one whose members are much more emotional then the general public. WE are ARTISTS here, our emotions are much more awake than usual. To look at the issue and not mention our potential for emotional reactions, and specially overreactions, is naïve and dangerously blind. In this respect, the defenders of any solution which implied this affair is simply “TOO emotional” are making a very GOOD point, but AT THE SAME TIME a very WEAK point.

Or in another context, as Hedges points out, emotions that run wild politically speaking, become utterly absurd, and because of this, doubly dangerous. Just listen:

“Nationalist and ethnic conflicts are fratricides that turn on absurdities. They can only be sustained by myth. The arguments and bloody disputes take place over tiny, almost imperceptible nuances in the society … In the Balkans, for example, there were heated debates over the origin of gingerbread hearts –cookies in the shapes of hearts. The Croats insisted that the cookies were Croatian. The Serbs angrily countered that the cookies were Serbian. To those of us on the outside …….it had a lunacy to it, but to the participants it was deadly serious. It had to be, for the nationalist myths stand on such minuscule differences. These myths give neighbors the justification to kill those they had gone to school and grown up with.” (pg. 32)

(Sometimes, when I am more pessimistic, I think; “Thank god dA is a CYBER community; we cannot touch each other.”

3. Moderates truly have in mind the well-being of the community before their own personal benefit and recognition. Leaders ---–leaving aside their own desire for justice, and specially, recognition--- should be an example in this respect. Leaders should, for example, rethink how they emphasize over and over again the sacrifices they have done for the community. It seems that their sacrifice entitles them to something. They seem to DESERVE something. However, constantly stressing the fact that being a founder is a SACRIFICE seems to point out to something MUCH deeper. If founding is such a sacrifice, why did they found a community in the first place? Of course we are GRATEFUL to the founders, but we are NOT too grateful for their constantly telling us how sacrificed they are. I mean, think about it founders , you really GET SOMETHING out of this sacrifice, don’t you? If you can see clearly what you GET for your sacrifice, you can become better leaders. But maybe you don’t believe me. So listen to them directly:

On spyed’s sacrifice:

“Around 2003, we were joined by $spot who worked full time for deviantART for a full year without pay. He slept on the floor of a closet next to a bathroom in his cousin's apartment. That's what you call dedication to a community my friends. And where's his praise? It doesn't matter: he doesn't ask for it”

(Question: If he doesn’t ask for it why mention it?)

On jark's sacrifice:

“Let it be known...that Jark devoted full-time man hours to dA...he may not have been defined or titled a full-time employee, but that does not mean he didn't put full-time hours in. He dedicated his life to dA, often at the expense of his own life and own health. The truth will come out full circle.” [link]

(Question: if even health was at issue, why continue?)

Or think of the following: can you imagine if I started this journal by telling you how much I sacrificed myself for it! Do you see what I am getting at?

4. Moderates understand the dangers of ANGER in politics. Artists -----being the closest of all humans to the passions----- should be aware that they can also be the closest to their misguided expression. Of course, this anger is not so easily experienced in cyberspace because we are not there to touch each other, or beat each other up. Though I have read some journals that show the willingness to beat up others. The danger in cyberspace is that , when we do not have the person face to face, we tend to be much more relaxed about what we say. For instance, think about how different it is when you fight on the phone than face to face with someone. All this might make you wonder how many untapped feelings lie under this “debate”, deep emotions which are in need of some clarification. This is specially so here at dA given the age of many deviants whose passions are STRONG ----–yes, extremely creative----- but politically VERY dangerous. That this was THE BIGGEST MISTAKE by the administration, is clearly argued for by Spyed in his response:

“The community is angry: Let's get right to the point. We know the community is angry, and we completely understand why. You're angry because you've been told that the one man responsible for deviantART.com and its success over the past 5 years has been removed against his will. We need to clear up some facts: This is not what has happened: no one person is responsible for deviantART.”

This is certainly the way to go. But I have serious DOUBTS as to whether spyed, as he claims, “completely understands why”. I have studied anger for many years and I cannot claim that I understand it completely. The point is to understand WHY many in the community are SO angry. I am a bit upset myself! If the administration does not understand what a founding requires, then, they well not be able to do away with the anger.

5. Moderates understand the dangers behind any foundation of a community, as the story of the foundation of Rome reveals. Moderate deviants, and intelligent founders, do not want to recreate this MYTH here at dA, but they recognize the power of myth, or in a sense, the power of art. I mean, in part, something like this; we are all artists here, so we should KNOW the value of a myth. Consequently it would be EXTREMELY naïve, as our modern scientific approach does, to believe that myths do NOT have any power,. On the contrary, they might just have the MOST power because they touch unconscious nerves in the community. This is why those who simply speak of technical/economic solutions to dA are making a HUGE mistake. They must work to reestablish a certain myth about our community, of who we are.

6. Moderates believe a PUBLIC debate is required in which the parties can express their points of view, even after certain decisions have already been made. Deviants will then make the decisions they see fit.

7. Moderates defend stances such as “yellow day” on August 7th ----–as a form of protest--- but are against radical deletion of galleries. But if there is a “yellow day”, we should push, as well, for a “white day” of moderation. I wonder how many would attend.

8. WE moderates CAN also be extremists –----we are only human---- but we CHOOSE not to. We prefer to be extremists in our art. Isn’t that what dA is ALL about?

9. Moderates believe that the very survival of the community depends, on the one hand, on the humility and intelligence of those who lead the community and, on the other, on the moderation and intelligence of the many deviants who admire those who actually began this community.

10. Moderate members and leaders should do well in investigating how a founding in cyberspace differs radically from a founding in real space. For one, a founding in REAL space always requires guardians (i.e., soldiers) who protect the community from outside interference. This is why Plato’s Republic ----which precisely teaches much about the founding of communities------ dedicates huge sections to the problematic education of guardians. To see this issue, think about the history of the founding of your country and how so much is remembered that has to deal with wars of independence which are remembered EVERY year. That we in cyberspace do not need such guardians, may be a benefit to founding a cyber-community. However, I have read journals which are now starting to point out clashes between deviantART and flickr. In other words, we may be acting more as cyber-soldiers than as artists.

11. Moderates should investigate more what it means to found a community of ARTISTS; so far as I know this is a unique challenge. Why is this so? Precisely because the political sphere requires commanding and obeying; BUT on the other hand the artistic sphere ------primarily our modern artistic sphere----- wants radical freedom of self-expression. Governing and authenticity seem to run into conflict at times. Administration wants to govern and direct, but it is one thing to govern normal citizens, is quite another challenge to govern artists who feel their freedom of expression is the most important good they possess. For you see, many artists, I can assure you, hardly possess more than that. An example of this, is the issue regarding featured daily deviations and the debate over whether they can be questioned or not.

12. Moderates understand that, in times of peace, the mythological beginnings of the community are never questioned but are silently presupposed. However, in times of trouble and war, the foundations come to be seen in radical different ways. For instance, think of the following: Who of the former Yugoslavians thinks him/herself as a Yugoslavian? Very few. But for many YEARS they appeared to do so.

13. Moderates understand that they may not be many, that they might be seen as weak by both contending parties, but that does not trouble us much. For usually the truth is more moderate than extreme. Or better put, moderation has a better chance at getting at SOME truth. Besides, we are not so interested in recognition as others. Though, yes, we admit it, we like to look at how many page-views we have. (Hedges provides incredible examples of this problematic.)

14. Moderates do NOT LOVE jark or spyed. I would not say this except for the issue of loving one particular founder which one finds all over the place at dA. This is a bit too weird for me. However, moderates are very GRATEFUL to the founders of this site. MODERATES DO PASSIONATELY LOVE dA. You see, we are hardly moderate at times!

15. To conclude, to THINK about what a the founding of a community means is, perhaps, one of THE single most important points to be taken up in this current debate here at dA. Instead of lawyers, we -------as a community------ should dedicate some time to thinking about what may lie behind the founding of a given community. (For instance, leaders and community members might look at and discuss the difference between a society founded upon a social contract theory, and a community founded upon civic humanist principles.) This, and this is the purpose of this sketchy journal, might bring some moderation to the parties and a combined future to dA as a community.

(PS. If you are a moderate, please comment this deviation. If you find this thoughts helpful, do let me know. They are not easy to express because we rarely think about them.)

4. Some journals on the issues.

a. !coxi [link] A GOOD MODERATE JOURNAL (Though he makes a crucial error when he argues that the founding is not emotional: “A company is not built up of emotion. There is heart in it but decisions and plans sometimes have their bad sides as well.”. Coxi avoids the crucial issue; for some dA is NOT a company first but rather a community first. Communities are sustained by emotions and thought, not by numbers.)

b. $spyed [link]

c. ~ajrk [link]

d. `superkev [link]