While the rationale is logical, the bottom line looks like:
a) The 'art' was, not representative of a mature thought or idea (but so what?!)
b) Niall caved to external pressure and self-censored, instead of continuing to express himself or making additional attempts to convey the point of the 'art'.
And the point bears further conveyance, IMO.
If Technorati believes markets are conversations, then, by virtue of its actions yesterday and today, it also believes that conversations need to be censored in order for the market to remain --- what, healthy? effective? under control?
The explanation here seems incomplete.
Suppose this: 'art' that is 'good' compels people to think and to act. In that event Niall did something that succeeded in some way, but it needs to be continued, and not abandoned.
It seems like the artist is backing down, for sound personal and professional reasons which nevertheless reek of artistic compromise and surrender -- to corporate concerns which are simpler and less interesting than his own -- possibly more thoughtful and nuanced -- ideas on the subject.
I had thought Technorati was a bit more bolder than these events as related imply.
I urge them to be different, and -- personally and collectively -- not to cave in to such traditional value concerns. Explore. You're a new company in a new industry. You're supposed to explore. Yeah?
No?
Hmm.
6 Comments
Commentary on "Cheese sandwich":
Subscribe to new comments
evan on March 7, 2005 at 1:40 PM wrote: #
Phil Ringnalda on March 7, 2005 at 6:55 PM wrote: #
Ron Atkinson on March 7, 2005 at 7:19 PM wrote: #
Niall Kennedy on March 8, 2005 at 1:23 AM wrote: #
benjamin on March 8, 2005 at 10:46 AM wrote: #
Phil on March 8, 2005 at 5:19 PM wrote: #