I apologize for this being so long, but as it probably doesn’t have a chance to be selected as a news item, I decided to post it here. As I browse around the DA site, there are a lot of questions being asked about the philosophy behind the forthcoming program, which will be implemented this coming September. If you aren’t familiar with the proposed format, it is suggested that you read $Spyeds’ journals:

1. Scaling the Deviants.
2. Scaling the Deviants: Part Deux.
3. Conclusion of Scaling the Deviants.

    The first journal is an introduction, where those who dwell in “window-less gray rooms filled with no art, looking at blinking lights” meet the “millions of artists here.” Inherent within this marriage is talk of the social science being conducted at DA, and the reader is introduced to the concept of the “group.”
    Starting with the hypothesis that DA is unnavigable (why hasn’t a proper search engine been engineered?), the solution is presented in the form of arraigning the artists and their works into these “groups.”
    In theory, this will streamline the DA experience by categorizing certain artists together so that when a visit is made on one particular group, the viewer can see many artists who share a common criteria (what that criteria consists of is never elaborated on). This will aid other deviants as well, enabling them to make better use of their time as they are able to pick and chose which groups they wish to visit, determined by that groups “rating (more on this later).”

    Because there has not been an in-depth explanation on how this program would work, conjecture has arisen. What follows are some of the concerns that have been “voiced” from various deviants as one travels through the DA landscape:

    How will the groups operate on a day-to-day basis? Is an artist automatically placed in one? Is it determined by skill level, type of art, page views, etc.? If an artist creates in a variety of mediums, does the art get split up among different groups? Will some of an artists’ work be accepted, and some not? Are these groups “allowed” to interact? What if a member doesn’t like the group they find themselves in? Is an artist able to change groups, or is one a set member for the duration of their time on DA?

    In “Scaling the Deviants: Part Deux,” the reader begins to find out some of the particulars. The main objectives of the plan are stated as twofold: “Connect people who should be connected”, and “Provide flexible environments that enable community leaders to provide value.”

    The explanations which are given in the following section, “We the People” are not entirely clear. I quote:

“In addition to being a technology company, deviantART also serves as what is effectively the land of a pure capitalist democracy. We provide the platform (the land) and we allow the people to purely elect who rises and who falls. Instead of money (resources) as a focal point for deviants, our focal point is the most loved art and artists. Every day that passes art rises to the top and/or falls to the bottom entirely based on either skill or entertainment value as it relates to a massive community of people who "vote" in the system. Some deviants receive more love than other deviants. And everyone works towards receiving the most love. Usually in the form of comments, favorites and +devwatches.”

    While it may be true for some, personally I don’t participate in the DA community to receive love. I come here to look at other art, be inspired, and communicate with people of like mind. Yes, I do enjoy it when the work that I do is appreciated, but I don’t create art with the intent of seeking popularity. I create art because I am an artist. Read carefully paragraph number two of “We the People” and perhaps one begins to understand that, although the “groups” are seemingly initiated for other deviants, are they really being organized for other purposes?

    Saying that the “problem isn't quantity, its quality,” Spyed proposes that the answer is to allow the Community Leader (compared to entrepreneurs) to “inspire the fragmented community to produce and bring to light higher quality art work.”
    Under the current system, Spyed provides a formula which, if followed, will equal “success:” “X” is how much time one spends on the site. “Y” is how good the work you submit is, and “Z” is leaving comments, journals, or, “being unique”. Artists who do these three factors will be assured many page-views, and in return, that their work will be seen by many others on the website. However, this isn’t good enough, so the new program must begin.

    “Where Art meets Corporation” is the nuts and bolts of the second journal, where the reader is told the role of group (community) leaders:

“We need ART GROUPS with a hierarchy structure permitting the leaders of "groups" to control who has access to publish, represent and maintain the group. We need anyone in the community with leadership skill to start a group and begin building what could be a massively popular destination for millions of visitors.”

    How are group leaders chosen? Are they self-appointed? What if a leader abandons a group? Does that group disband, or does the most “popular member” take pre-eminence? What, exactly, is meant by “controlling who as access to publish represent and maintain the group?” Do they control what can be displayed? Does the art on DA need to be controlled? What criteria will be used to control it? Who, exactly, does the ranking? What if personalities clash between a group leader and a member of that group? What if the group leader prefers one style over another? What if an artist works in a variety of styles?

    What is presented, in a word, is structure. In and of itself, structure isn’t a bad thing. Here’s an example: If you pour concrete onto the ground, it has no shape and will not do anyone any good. First, a form must be built, then the concrete poured so that when it is soft, the form will provide shape until the concrete hardens. The hierarchy spoken of in Journal Two provides a pyramid type structure which makes it easier to manage the millions of artists that have come to call DA home. By “grouping” these artists, there is an ever ascending tier, the level of control and authority becoming greater as one approaches the apex of the pyramid.

    “Applied to deviantART this means;” If you want to stay a member of the prestigious groups, you will only submit work that meets the criteria of that group, or, as presented in the journal, “every artists reputation within a peer group becomes intimately tied to their value proposition to that peer group.”
    The benefits are also put forth as an increased opportunity for younger artists to learn, increased traffic for artists participating in the system, as well as greater motivation and support.
    Point Four states that “deviantART would no longer feel so big and cumbersome; the "population density" of deviantART would thin out, even as the overall participating audience grew by millions.

    Would it thin out because beginning artists and those who create art “for fun” would leave, feeling disenfranchised by a system which rewards those who make the site look good, and punishes those who just want to learn and communicate with other artists? Who are the millions of overall participating audience? Other artists? How would this system provide greater learning opportunities over the current system for beginning artists?

    In the Conclusion Journal, we are now told how the formula of X, Y, and Z will apply once the groups are in place. Elaborating with greater examples of what the formula consists of (and how it is applied), the parallel is then given that those with the most page-views, hence, the most popular artists on DA, are doing everything right! Out of the ten deviants with the most page-views listed (according to their own definition), 1 is a comic book artist, 3 are photographers, 1 is a macabre artist, 1 is an art student, 1 is a Network Developer, 1 is a procrastinator, 1 is a comic book club, and 1 is a surreal artist.

    Without taking anything away from the artists listed above, is popularity the proper criteria to determine what is good or bad art? I believe the artists in the list would most assuredly say, “no”. Does page count alone determine popularity? If popularity is the goal, shouldn’t all the other “less popular” artists seek to emulate what those with the most page-views do?

    The journal closes out with the following:

“Groups will be a simple system for users, it will take years for the deviantART society to embrace it properly, but the sooner it launches the sooner that process begins.”

    It seems to be clear that this new system of community leaders, groups, and rankings are coming to a DeviantART site near you. Because we have been given the bare bones explaination of how it will all work, in closing, a few more questions must be asked:

    Is ranking a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that, the ones who are ranked “in the top groups” continue to get better rankings because, let’s face it, they will get looked at the most by virtue of their ranking?

    Is the whole ranking system being devised, not to help deviants communicate and learn, but in order to sell advertisers at a premium rate by guaranteeing them that their ads will be placed on pages with the most views? Advertisers who can’t pay as much can be offered “secondary” positions on the hierarchy tree.

    Because of the new submission agreement, which states that DA can electronically reproduce you work (Internet, Mobil Phones, television, Palm Pilots, etc.) without your express consent, is the new group system being implemented to see which artists retain their popularity, hence, their “viability” to DA as people associate it with a place to obtain “free, quality art” for use on the latest technological device?
    I understand that, as the site continues to grow, it has to produce capital to remain a viable entity. I’ve never had a problem with that aspect. But, are the artists that comprise the art and soul of DeviantART being sold a “bill of goods” under the auspices of community, when its real purpose is to facilitate the company? Anyone ever play chess?

    Questions. They can be the darndest things, sometimes. As a contributing member of the DA community, what are your thoughts on this matter?

--
"I Ink, Therefore, I Am."
A member of the Loreena McKennitt Club.