Maya Hayuk 🇺🇸 Street Art • New Release • Art For Sale , by met on Jul 9, 2015 4:58:19 GMT 1,

Jul 8, 2015 23:43:47 GMT 1 Coach said:

Jul 8, 2015 22:49:08 GMT 1 met said:

Thank you for the tip. Much appreciated.

Although I found the structure of The Folly of Crowds? a little disappointing, many of the individual points mentioned were engaging and made the listen worthwhile.

For anyone else interested, here's the LSE link to the podcast:

www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3149


On this forum, I sense the general willingness to publicly share opinions often seems influenced by the previously-stated opinions of others. For example, criticism of an artwork or of behaviour is more likely to be posted if negative comments have already been made by fellow forum members. Likewise with praise in a thread, which is often quickly backed up by additional praise.

This creates a snowball effect in the expression of views perceived to reflect the group norm. It's safety in numbers, herd instinct. And ultimately it's unsurprising — since it takes much less energy to follow, to go with the flow, than it does to fight or go against the grain.

What's more interesting, however, are the potential consequences. Such group behaviour illustrates why the views expressed in a particular thread, if examined as a whole to determine some kind of median opinion, don't necessarily represent the views of the average forum member.

The risk therefore is that people reading certain threads (like most of the sale threads here) may get a skewed impression of the general mood of the forum and the majority view of its members. This, in turn, can make them less willing to express their own opinions — thereby reinforcing a perceived but false status quo by leaving it unchallenged.

A skewed impression may even influence some people to temporarily or permanently change their own opinions — leading to a gradual shift whereby the actual status quo and group consensus start to more closely resemble the false status quo.

Along with information cascades and the results of the Asch conformity experiments (touched upon in the LSE podcast), this may help explain how we reached the point where otherwise normal, rational individuals somehow convinced themselves it was a really good idea to spend a couple of hundred pounds on a plagiarised, photoshopped image of a ballerina wearing a tutu covered with faux graffiti tags.

I'm not so sure met.
Is it not possible that people express similar opinions because this is a forum dedicated (for the most part) to a single genre of art?
And I'm not too sure that there is such a herd mentality, in any event. Plenty of people here, I imagine, and myself included, have never bought a Whatson tagged ballerina (to use your example), or any other Whatson piece. Perhaps even a majority haven't?
Mind you, I do confess that I haven't yet had the chance to listen to the podcast in question.
But I don't feel part of a herd. I'm quite content to say if I don't agree with something. Though I will rarely tell someone that a piece of art that they are trying to sell, or have just bought, is (in my opinion) poor, as I tend to believe that to do so is a little rude or even hurtful.
It's all very thought provoking though.

I'm not necessarily equating the expression of similar opinions to being sheep-like. The majority of members here probably have very similar, favourable views when it comes to a lot of the art created by Banksy, especially his street work.

However, I do believe individuals are much more inclined to agree with others than to disagree. Many of us prefer conflict avoidance.

Both by nature and social conditioning, people generally have a desire to be liked, to be accepted, and to feel as if they're part of a group rather than isolated. And if these are among the objectives (even if minor and only at a subconscious level) for members who post on the forum, they are more easily achieved or facilitated by complimenting artwork and agreeing with or supporting other comments. Far more so than by criticising artwork and artists, and publicly disagreeing with or challenging other members.

When someone dislikes something, I think there exists a strong temptation, even a social incentive, to remain quiet. The result can be misleading one-sidedness and unquestioned praise — especially in sale threads, where honestly-held and considered opinions are also (this time from a group or community perspective) frowned upon, actively discouraged or even banned if they happen to be negative.

I am not trying to give the impression there's a single, forum-wide herd moving blindly in unison. But from my perspective, herds do regularly form within the forum, some larger and with greater momentum than others. Information cascades seem to be common occurrences. And those with vested interests (or their stooges, the art-market equivalents of polezniye duraki) often try to dismiss dissent and to isolate and silence the contrarians — with ad hominem attacks, thought-terminating clichés like "Haters gonna hate", and the oft-repeated complaint, "If you don't like it, why bother saying so? Just move on." 

This culture of attempting to stifle critique, in order to safeguard commercial interests or minimise at all costs the risk of any disharmony, does the forum a real disservice. It certainly isn't in the interest of newer members and less experienced collectors. They are the ones most prone to being unduly influenced and making ill-advised purchases.

Occasionally, those who were conned will subsequently acknowledge their former patsy status in a humorous and self-deprecating manner, with comments along the lines of, "How on earth was I sucked into buying these BNE t-shirts?" or "The Outis print purchase wasn't me; it was a moment of madness."

Good for them that they can be philosophical. But better still if skeptics were encouraged to voice their opinions, if potential buyers were prompted to think twice or three times, and if some expensive purchase mistakes and future grief or embarrassment could thereby be avoided altogether.  

No doubt the day will come when we spot a sale thread for a canvas featuring a young man in a hoodie, holding a Norwegian flag and sitting on a cow. On that day, I'll argue your duty to look after novice (and perhaps gullible) collector-buyers should override any concern for the seller and causing hurt feelings.

Jul 8, 2015 23:43:47 GMT 1 Coach said:

Jul 8, 2015 22:49:08 GMT 1 met said:

Thank you for the tip. Much appreciated.

Although I found the structure of The Folly of Crowds? a little disappointing, many of the individual points mentioned were engaging and made the listen worthwhile.

For anyone else interested, here's the LSE link to the podcast:

www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3149


On this forum, I sense the general willingness to publicly share opinions often seems influenced by the previously-stated opinions of others. For example, criticism of an artwork or of behaviour is more likely to be posted if negative comments have already been made by fellow forum members. Likewise with praise in a thread, which is often quickly backed up by additional praise.

This creates a snowball effect in the expression of views perceived to reflect the group norm. It's safety in numbers, herd instinct. And ultimately it's unsurprising — since it takes much less energy to follow, to go with the flow, than it does to fight or go against the grain.

What's more interesting, however, are the potential consequences. Such group behaviour illustrates why the views expressed in a particular thread, if examined as a whole to determine some kind of median opinion, don't necessarily represent the views of the average forum member.

The risk therefore is that people reading certain threads (like most of the sale threads here) may get a skewed impression of the general mood of the forum and the majority view of its members. This, in turn, can make them less willing to express their own opinions — thereby reinforcing a perceived but false status quo by leaving it unchallenged.

A skewed impression may even influence some people to temporarily or permanently change their own opinions — leading to a gradual shift whereby the actual status quo and group consensus start to more closely resemble the false status quo.

Along with information cascades and the results of the Asch conformity experiments (touched upon in the LSE podcast), this may help explain how we reached the point where otherwise normal, rational individuals somehow convinced themselves it was a really good idea to spend a couple of hundred pounds on a plagiarised, photoshopped image of a ballerina wearing a tutu covered with faux graffiti tags.

I'm not so sure met.
Is it not possible that people express similar opinions because this is a forum dedicated (for the most part) to a single genre of art?
And I'm not too sure that there is such a herd mentality, in any event. Plenty of people here, I imagine, and myself included, have never bought a Whatson tagged ballerina (to use your example), or any other Whatson piece. Perhaps even a majority haven't?
Mind you, I do confess that I haven't yet had the chance to listen to the podcast in question.
But I don't feel part of a herd. I'm quite content to say if I don't agree with something. Though I will rarely tell someone that a piece of art that they are trying to sell, or have just bought, is (in my opinion) poor, as I tend to believe that to do so is a little rude or even hurtful.
It's all very thought provoking though.

I'm not necessarily equating the expression of similar opinions to being sheep-like. The majority of members here probably have very similar, favourable views when it comes to a lot of the art created by Banksy, especially his street work.

However, I do believe individuals are much more inclined to agree with others than to disagree. Many of us prefer conflict avoidance.

Both by nature and social conditioning, people generally have a desire to be liked, to be accepted, and to feel as if they're part of a group rather than isolated. And if these are among the objectives (even if minor and only at a subconscious level) for members who post on the forum, they are more easily achieved or facilitated by complimenting artwork and agreeing with or supporting other comments. Far more so than by criticising artwork and artists, and publicly disagreeing with or challenging other members.

When someone dislikes something, I think there exists a strong temptation, even a social incentive, to remain quiet. The result can be misleading one-sidedness and unquestioned praise — especially in sale threads, where honestly-held and considered opinions are also (this time from a group or community perspective) frowned upon, actively discouraged or even banned if they happen to be negative.

I am not trying to give the impression there's a single, forum-wide herd moving blindly in unison. But from my perspective, herds do regularly form within the forum, some larger and with greater momentum than others. Information cascades seem to be common occurrences. And those with vested interests (or their stooges, the art-market equivalents of polezniye duraki) often try to dismiss dissent and to isolate and silence the contrarians — with ad hominem attacks, thought-terminating clichés like "Haters gonna hate", and the oft-repeated complaint, "If you don't like it, why bother saying so? Just move on." 

This culture of attempting to stifle critique, in order to safeguard commercial interests or minimise at all costs the risk of any disharmony, does the forum a real disservice. It certainly isn't in the interest of newer members and less experienced collectors. They are the ones most prone to being unduly influenced and making ill-advised purchases.

Occasionally, those who were conned will subsequently acknowledge their former patsy status in a humorous and self-deprecating manner, with comments along the lines of, "How on earth was I sucked into buying these BNE t-shirts?" or "The Outis print purchase wasn't me; it was a moment of madness."

Good for them that they can be philosophical. But better still if skeptics were encouraged to voice their opinions, if potential buyers were prompted to think twice or three times, and if some expensive purchase mistakes and future grief or embarrassment could thereby be avoided altogether.  

No doubt the day will come when we spot a sale thread for a canvas featuring a young man in a hoodie, holding a Norwegian flag and sitting on a cow. On that day, I'll argue your duty to look after novice (and perhaps gullible) collector-buyers should override any concern for the seller and causing hurt feelings.