59 replies to this topic

[Tony Watkins]

Might having a link that allowed people to view new posts without seeing the posts in the look outside forum have some benefit? Just a thought.

Matt

Not a bad idea. I often don't want to go and read someone's blog, and if I do I know where I want to go to. What I come here for are the discussions. I have also wondered today whether the non-arts forums are a good thing or not.

I frequently get tempted into the science and technology forum because it's there and issues which strongly interest me come up there. But it's not what I'm here for really. There are plenty of other places where I can discuss science (and have more useful discussions quite frankly: While there are some scientists here - or science-minded people - we're a minority, and most of the posts, in my experience, are just like my contributions: here's an interesting bit of news). We're not about discussing science really, but arts and faith. I've contributed to other non-arts forums too when I arrive and something catches my attention - but I always feel that I've allowed myself to get distracted and I end up contributing a little less to the arts threads. Would it help to restore an allegedly lost focus if the only forums really were arts and faith only?

My general reflections on A&F: I've been posting here since last summer, having lurked previously. Many discussions have been tremendously helpful - including some about second-rate films. But a few have been wrecked by really ill-natured arguments. I would spend more time here if all the discussions could stay on track and they didn't get into personal attacks.

[Andy Whitman]

I have become rather disappointed in the boards as of late. It is as though they are largely used as a gateway to blogs, a promotional tool for pitching goods, and a hyperlink site for consumption. I hold but one or two exceptions. None of this is directed toward Alan. I think he does his best and, for some unknown reason, he was willing to take the role of directing this UFO. That is a big job.

I agree.

Let me focus in on the comment about blogs, though. I'm wondering if links to blogs can be handled somewhat differently.

Right now, whenever I post something on my blog, a new post magically appears in the "A Look Outside" forum, linking to my new blog entry. In theory I don't have a problem with this. But sometimes I post entries on my blog that have nothing to do with art and/or faith. And although people are certainly welcome to read my blog, I don't know why they would necessarily want to in many instances. The "my kid is so much like a little lawyer/I wish she was less like a lawyer" blog entries are of great interest to me, and of possible interest to people who know me personally, but I can't imagine why most A&F people would particularly care. So ... is there some way to flag blog entries as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" for inclusion on A&F? My guess is that there isn't, but I thought it was worth asking.

In terms of using A&F as a "promotional tool for pitching goods," I want to be sensitive in this area. I, like many others here, write for various magazines and websites. Would I like you all to read what I write? Of course. Would I welcome your feedback? Of course. Do I mention this too frequently? I don't know. Maybe I do. But the danger is that this sends the intimidating and alienating message that the board is overrun with "professionals."

Here's the deal: I don't want to be a "professional." I'm an opinionated, prideful jerk who likes to spout off in print, and then to glory in the printed opinions. Hey, look at me. I understand why such an approach can be offputting. But if it makes you feel any better, think of it as a product of my own insecurities rather than an attempt to squelch discussion. I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I don't want to use A&F as a promotional tool for pitching goods. But ... I'd love for you to buy my particular goods anyway, selfish, insecure jerk that I am. Make sense?

[Tony Watkins]

My sincerest thanks to Alan - and to all of the moderators - for putting in many long hours here, and for giving of yourselves so generously. Honest conversation is going to stretch and challenge all of us here - as it should. Your kindness and fair-mindedness has helped me get through some tough times here, and I'm sure that's true for many others aw well.

Absolutely. I'm deeply grateful to Alan and the others.

When I'd finally started posting I soon found myself on the receiving end of some robust comments from some long-standing A&Fers. Two things persuaded me to stay with it: my personal conviction that civilised discussion (ie communicating with a measure of grace and humility) is something that needs to be done very carefully in a forum like this where we are entirely dependent on text and occasional emoticons, and the personal encouragements of a couple of other more established posters. Maybe I shouldn't name names but I will put on record how valuable the encouragement of Ellen and Greg was at that stage. Theirs was the kind of welcome it behoves all of us to extend to newbies - even if we profoundly disagree with them.

[Lance McLain]

BTW, I'm absolutely in favor of lively, spirited discussion - but I think that Tony's mention of "communicating with grace and humility" is the key to it. (Along with the ability to laugh at oneself!.)

Being easily offended is no virture!

regards,
-Lance

[Buckeye Jones]

I've contributed to other non-arts forums too when I arrive and something catches my attention - but I always feel that I've allowed myself to get distracted and I end up contributing a little less to the arts threads. Would it help to restore an allegedly lost focus if the only forums really were arts and faith only?

I don't know that we've lost focus--as Alan mentioned, the Pan's Labyrinth thread (and Children of Men thread, albeit with some rockiness) are both very good conversations on the nature of fantasy, violence, and redemptive narrative in film. Both are very long, and occasionally heated. But I can't see a loss of focus in them.

I would be sad to see the non-arts fora disappear, even politics. Its in these discussions that relationships are developed--and critique the virtual community if you will, but I believe relationships are developed and friendships formed here.

Tangentially, I sometimes regret my username--clearly a pseudonym, it allows my posts a certain anonymity that I find valuable on the internet, but it also creates a barrier I think to developing those relationship I'm hawking a paragraph above. There's something about knowing someone's name that enables a bond to be formed, and is itself a small sign of vulnerability on the part of the named in allowing himself to be known and identified. I guess I appreciate knowing Alan's name, and Jeffrey's, and Peter's, and Rich's, and on down the line. But I also like not having "Ed A llie" show up in online searches.

Anyway, back to my point. Its in my opinion critical for building those touch points that drive the development of relationship that the other fora stay. Its discussions about coffee and how embarrassingly badly the Buckeyes played in Tempe that enable the disagreements that do lead to arguments to be smoothed over. Isn't it called social capital--we all need to invest to realize the dividends.

[Tony Watkins]

Anyway, back to my point. Its in my opinion critical for building those touch points that drive the development of relationship that the other fora stay. Its discussions about coffee and how embarrassingly badly the Buckeyes played in Tempe that enable the disagreements that do lead to arguments to be smoothed over. Isn't it called social capital--we all need to invest to realize the dividends.

Good points. It's down to me whether or not I get distracted I guess. And reflecting on what you've said, I guess I value knowing that Alan is deeply concerned about environmental issues and that some people have got very good taste in tea.

[Andy Whitman]

Re. pseudonymns, I'm not seeing any need to "apologize" for them - we're not sitting around a table eating and talking, though i often wish that was the case. I don't like using my given name online, period.

Okay, time to come clean. My real name is Ralph Waldo Faulkner.

[Jeff Kolb]

I'm curious about the sentiment (seemingly held by some) that A&F has "lost focus" or slowed down. In short, I don't see it.

I have a fairly unqiue perspective here. I've been part of this string of boards for at least four or five years under different names, yet I've never been a big poster, especially in the flagship "Film" forum. I just don't know that much about film.

The board has evolved from consisting of the posts of a few to becoming a community of many. But there are still great discussions of all sorts.

Oh, and I agree that Alan does a heck of a job in his, um, job. As moderator. Thank you, Alan.

[Tony Watkins]

I'm curious about the sentiment (seemingly held by some) that A&F has "lost focus" or slowed down. In short, I don't see it.

I've not been around long enough to know (hence my use of the term 'allegedly' above). The initial question just set me wondering. I've posted much less in the last 3 months, and sometimes feel there isn't a discussion I want to get stuck into. Which is partly why I began to wonder if the non-arts fora were a distraction. And further reflection makes me realise it's me to blame if I allow myself to be distracted (and for some being distracted is not a problem, but I primarily come here for professional reasons - to get the wonderful interplay and diverse insights of some minds that are well tuned in arts-faith matters). It's also, I realise, at least partly my fault if I don't want to wade into some debates. Work has been so pressurised in the last six months (so I probably shouldn't be coming here to play at all most days!) that I've seen far fewer films than I should have done, and I can't afford the luxury of re-examining some older films and older threads. Also, I guess these things go in cycles - periods when it happens that lots of discussions are my kind of thing, and periods when not much is.

I still think it's great (which is why you all get a corporate acknowledgment in my book).

(Have I just become guilty of product promotion again - sorry, that's not my intention; rather to indicate the level of my appreciation).

tony

[Greg Wright]

You know (again, looking back), all this makes me wonder: Do you pray for us?

You know, Alan, a good pinned topic would be: "Prayers for A&F."

[Crow]

The "Prayers for A&F" idea is a timely reminder. I have learned quite a bit on this board, have discovered many great films as a result, and I appreciate the effort that Alan and others make to keep this place running. But it's a good to remember that it's important to keep each other in prayer.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Andy Whitman wrote:
: But the danger is that this sends the intimidating and alienating message that the
: board is overrun with "professionals."

I agree that we need to blur, if not obliterate, the line between "professionals" and "non-professionals" here. At the same time, I think it can be a positively good thing to encourage non-pros to become pros. I think we have seen a number of people here make significant progress in their film-commentary careers (I use the word loosely) since joining this group -- either in this incarnation of the board, or in one of its previous incarnations -- and the more we can encourage that, the better. At the same time, we have seen some pros become non-pros, and unfortunately, they have tended to (mostly) drop out of the picture; I would like to think that they could still hang around here and keep us company, and share our love of the arts in a more casual way even if they no longer earn their bread and butter by writing on it, but that's up to them. (Since I recently started missing screenings on a regular basis so as to look after my kids, this is not entirely an academic question for me.)

The one thing I don't "get" is when people who write DVD liner notes and the like pop by here to complain that there are too many "insiders" here.

Alan Thomas wrote:
: You know (again, looking back), all this makes me wonder: Do you pray for us?

Individual people who frequent here, yes. The board, per se, no. The people are more important than the board, and I can't say I have ever been inclined to pray for any of the fanzines, newsgroups, listservs, etc. that I have participated in, though I have prayed for individual people and groups of people that I met in those venues.

[Denny Wayman]

I enjoy this board for what it is in my life. It is the opportunity to listen in on, join or ignore some very, very interesting, informed, intelligent conversations. Where else in life can this happen? Certainly not at this level and in this easy of a social structure where I can do it as my schedule permits and no one is mad that I don't "call them" or "respond to them" or whatever other social obligations exist in other settings. So...

I listen in on most of the conversations, in part because they are not mine and so I have no desire to join but find them fascinating. The fact that they are online means that the authors expect others to listen in, if we want, and take whatever is helpful from their comments home with them. I do not consider that "lurking" but rather "learning." I have learned a great deal from the posts of this board and it has caused me to go off and read/learn in other ways.

I join those conversations which match my interest and passion. There are some things my life experience, my passion for ministry and film, my love for Jesus, and so on compels me to join. I have enjoyed, except for a few conversations the types of which I've learned to identify and not join, these conversations immensely. I find that almost every post is very helpful to me. I am seldom disappointed.

I ignore those conversations that don't interest me. That's again a great advantage in a board such as this. I have offended no one by saying to myself and to them by my click of the mouse, "I don't have time for this even if it is interesting." I have never read some of the areas of the board, and can't get into the personal stuff very much because as a pastoral counselor I have more personal stuff than I can emotionally handle already. When I am gone for weeks traveling and teaching, I can return and pick up where the conversations are at that time without anyone being upset that I was gone or that I came back.

My point is that this is a board for exceptional, Christian discussion. When we allow it to be that, it enriches our lives. If we expect it to be more, then it has inherent limitations, not the least of which is we don't even know some of the participants real names or real lives. We can't look into their eyes or allow our senses, physical and spiritual to assess their emotional and spiritual states. We can't hear the chuckle in their voice or the fear in their breathing. We don't know how it is at work or at home or at prayer. We don't even know what color one another's eyes are, let alone recognize one another's voices. These are inherent limitations to such a discussion board as this.

Denny

[Rich Kennedy]

That said, there's an exception: the political forum. My feeling is that A&F would probably be better off without it, judging from the many rancorous threads there - though since it's not been showing up under "new posts," things have calmed down a lot. (And so have I!)

Rancor is relative. Christian and I disagree violantly about coffee, but the stakes are low in such disagreements. The stakes are much higher during football season between Buckeye and me, yet there is a bond between us as part of the bretheren here. I can't think of anyone with whom I have participated in discussion here, regardless of level of rancor in a particular discussion, that I would not look up if I knew I would come close to in travels. Or I would avoid if I knew s/he were near Detroit. It is not just that this is my nature as an hospitable soul. There is also the curiousity of the real person behind the words you read and the bond of having "visited" in a disembodied way with so many so often here.

When any of us meet face to face, or with our friends of a more "normal" sort, there is usually the option open to discuss most anything of interest, regardless of any urge to do so. One of the things that is unique here is the similar range of options. Though this place is hardly exhaustive in its collection human intersts and passions, there is plenty here and an excellent example of the keeping of rancor to a minimum even in many highly charged discussions. I've learned an awful lot about Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and also a sense of some day to day aspects of the faith of liberal Protestants and that is something that conservative Protestants rarely get a sense of.

The best way to better this community is to add to it. For someone to augment our views with perspectives of which we are not aware and arguments yet to be heard. The same folks cannot always do that. Leaving the gates open gives us the opportunity for such to happen.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Re: the "political" forum, my own involvement there has dropped off ever since it stopped showing up in "View New Posts", but I do have to say I think it is as essential to this board as the "science" forum or the "religion" forum or any of the other fora that don't directly address film or the arts in general. I don't know how many people here recall this, but we created the "politics" forum here partly because our discussions of certain films in the old days veered into heavily political (and politicized) discussions that were detracting from our ability to discuss the films themselves. As with politics, so with, say, science -- we need a thread to discuss climate change in general, without always referencing Al Gore's movie (or, alternatively, we need to be able to discuss Al Gore's movie AS a movie without necessarily getting bogged down in the science of climate change).

[Denny Wayman]

I would also add that at different points in my life I would have found different aspects of this board interesting. For example, I started out being very interested in politics in my 20's and early 30's. But as I began working with politicians/political parties/partisan agendas, etc., I found it far less meaningful than advancing the Kingdom of God. I want to be a part of something that brings people together in ultimate solutions of eternal realities. So, although I recently hosted the Democratic leadership in our area of the state at our church, I do not give anywhere near the energy to this that I do to bringing Jesus into the lives of people in our city and state. That's not to say that others shouldn't, just for me I'm not going to give it much energy at this stage in my life and that includes discussing and rediscussing political beliefs and approaches. Film on the other hand is the language of the age...

Denny

Edited by Denny Wayman, 02 February 2007 - 07:52 PM.

[Persona]

I love you all and hope for a good direction for each of you.

Then again, I think ya'all sux.

-s.

[M. Leary]

Leary, in your own comments in the "does it matter" thread, you talk about the site in quite superlative terms as an incomparable reference on Christian approaches to film and art. Past tense. You also wrote that this would be true for "years and years to come". Do you no longer feel that way?

I still feel that this place is a powder keg of potential that every now and then flashes into brilliance. That is the way it has always been. Due to the fact that we in the main focus on current releases (and I know that is a vast generalization that really is only partially true), the quality of our conversation is linked to the quality of whatever films are currently out there. I still think it is the case that Arts and Faith has set a benchmark for Christian discussion of film, as articles, books, papers, and scads of reviews have been inspired by interaction here. I can think of no other dialogical setting that can claim that sort of success, even if it has taken different people different directions. And most of the interaction here is more than a cut above the popular books on film and theology that still pass in Evangelical Christendom as "state of the art." The "Top 100" is still a credit to our communal due diligence (even though no one else gets The Mosquito Coast).

I agree that we need to blur, if not obliterate, the line between "professionals" and "non-professionals" here.

This is an odd by product of the success of all the generations of this board. A few careers have blossomed here, whether part or full time, and that necessarily makes things different. Now it is hard for many to make any comments that can't be construed as "self-promoting" because guess what? A lot of posters here write on film in all their spare time and their posts are often going to be referring to work they have already done. There is a sort of planned obselesence behind Arts and Faith. If the goal has been to push Christian cultural conversation forward by actually "doing culture" and criticism together. That's happened! So the landscape here will shift as a result. It will increasingly become less of a think-tank than a space for the anorakic indulgence of theology and film buffs. That isn't inherently better or worse, just...different. I suppose what I fear the most is that this board will become plagued by some of the absurd wrangling that goes on at other film discussion sites, increasingly embittered argumentation about minute auteur details or points of cinematography.

[SDG]

Anorakic.

A-norak...

Oh. Anorak-ic.

Hm.

My Britophilic interests have previously introduced me to the term "anorak," both in the primary/literal and figurative senses of the term, but I never ran across an adjectival form before.

Heh. I see Google turns up exactly two other uses: a neologistic suggestion at Collins Word Exchange Forum... and another usage in an essay at Matthews House by guess who.

[M. Leary]

I have heard it over here a number of times both in conversation and on the telly, and scoured both Google and OED for precedent. There really is none. But feel free now to use the word as if it were actually a word. (And Britophilic is much better than Anglophilic. I am switching today.)

Edited by MLeary, 07 February 2007 - 11:12 AM.