FS: Blek Tango, Eine Elton Drk, Logan Hicks Sunset Apartment, by Deleted on Nov 28, 2015 11:06:27 GMT 1,

Nov 28, 2015 3:43:35 GMT 1 met said:

Nov 27, 2015 19:02:48 GMT 1 spirit said:

I'm not going to disclose which gallery it was. While it was frustrating and I expected better, no real damage was done and if I call them out publicly I think it would be doing them much more harm than they did me. However I do hope they read my post and behave a bit more professionally in future. As you say - basic courtesy really shouldn't be too much to expect from a business.

I sold the Blek to someone else on the day I made that post about the gallery so all's well that end's well.

That is a fair enough stance to take.

Just for the purpose of conversation, I think the reason we hold separate opinions here is largely because we're looking at the situation from different angles:

1.  Your emphasis on the actual or possible harm to each party perhaps suggests that you see disclosing the gallery's identity as an act of retribution, or as having the same effect. Hence the honourable concern regarding proportionality, that the "punishment" should fit the so-called crime.

2.  To my mind, such disclosure would simply be of a fact that completes a truthful, non-misleading account of one man's experience with a gallery during the course of a single transaction. Nothing more. In this respect, it would be comparable to a private individual's review of their recent experience at a restaurant.

For example, I might be pleasantly greeted and sat by a hostess, have my order promptly taken by a friendly waiter, and then subsequently (for reasons unknown) be repeatedly ignored by staff members when my food fails to arrive — until I finally decide to stop wasting my time, leave in frustration, and make myself a sandwich at home.

Any review written by me would however be less motivated by vengeance than by the stronger desire to give other potential diners a heads-up.

Who knows? The chef may have collapsed, the ovens may have broken down, or other blameless and one-off causes could at least partly explain what happened. The staff may have been in a panic. It wouldn't necessarily mean they were bad people, or that future diners would face similar ordeals. But if the above scenario had occurred, I'd consider it legitimate (and perhaps a duty) to share — to give an honest and evenhanded description of my personal experience at the restaurant on that particular day. In isolation, a poor write-up would of course be damaging. However, when combined with other existing reviews (positive, neutral and negative) and considered as a whole, it would hopefully offer a relatively accurate picture of what diners could expect there.

The more details publicly available about dealings with establishments, and the greater the number of sources, the stronger a position people are in to make informed decisions on whether or not to give those establishments their business.

-----------------

This was a long-winded way of trying to show how our priorities differ: Not unreasonably, yours seem more focused on the reputational and commercial interests of your counterparty, the gallery — whereas I, as a third-party outsider, naturally give greater precedence to open information exchange between collectors.

I believe both our positions have potential benefits and drawbacks.

You seem to strip out the humanity of these small businesses we call galleries, they're generally not some corporate entity with the moral code of a right wing christian thinking of nothing other than their own self interest and profit.

As Mr David Foster Wallace. You have a choice what to believe. Personally, I think the chef collapsed after working a triple shift to earn enough to pay for his sick moms medicine.

Nov 28, 2015 3:43:35 GMT 1 met said:

Nov 27, 2015 19:02:48 GMT 1 spirit said:

I'm not going to disclose which gallery it was. While it was frustrating and I expected better, no real damage was done and if I call them out publicly I think it would be doing them much more harm than they did me. However I do hope they read my post and behave a bit more professionally in future. As you say - basic courtesy really shouldn't be too much to expect from a business.

I sold the Blek to someone else on the day I made that post about the gallery so all's well that end's well.

That is a fair enough stance to take.

Just for the purpose of conversation, I think the reason we hold separate opinions here is largely because we're looking at the situation from different angles:

1.  Your emphasis on the actual or possible harm to each party perhaps suggests that you see disclosing the gallery's identity as an act of retribution, or as having the same effect. Hence the honourable concern regarding proportionality, that the "punishment" should fit the so-called crime.

2.  To my mind, such disclosure would simply be of a fact that completes a truthful, non-misleading account of one man's experience with a gallery during the course of a single transaction. Nothing more. In this respect, it would be comparable to a private individual's review of their recent experience at a restaurant.

For example, I might be pleasantly greeted and sat by a hostess, have my order promptly taken by a friendly waiter, and then subsequently (for reasons unknown) be repeatedly ignored by staff members when my food fails to arrive — until I finally decide to stop wasting my time, leave in frustration, and make myself a sandwich at home.

Any review written by me would however be less motivated by vengeance than by the stronger desire to give other potential diners a heads-up.

Who knows? The chef may have collapsed, the ovens may have broken down, or other blameless and one-off causes could at least partly explain what happened. The staff may have been in a panic. It wouldn't necessarily mean they were bad people, or that future diners would face similar ordeals. But if the above scenario had occurred, I'd consider it legitimate (and perhaps a duty) to share — to give an honest and evenhanded description of my personal experience at the restaurant on that particular day. In isolation, a poor write-up would of course be damaging. However, when combined with other existing reviews (positive, neutral and negative) and considered as a whole, it would hopefully offer a relatively accurate picture of what diners could expect there.

The more details publicly available about dealings with establishments, and the greater the number of sources, the stronger a position people are in to make informed decisions on whether or not to give those establishments their business.

-----------------

This was a long-winded way of trying to show how our priorities differ: Not unreasonably, yours seem more focused on the reputational and commercial interests of your counterparty, the gallery — whereas I, as a third-party outsider, naturally give greater precedence to open information exchange between collectors.

I believe both our positions have potential benefits and drawbacks.

You seem to strip out the humanity of these small businesses we call galleries, they're generally not some corporate entity with the moral code of a right wing christian thinking of nothing other than their own self interest and profit.

As Mr David Foster Wallace. You have a choice what to believe. Personally, I think the chef collapsed after working a triple shift to earn enough to pay for his sick moms medicine.