The Good Wall and Floor Awards

Hi Phillip,
Since you're expressly soliciting criticism, I'll be blunt. First of all, as far as first impressions go, the site itself leaves much to be desired. The design is unflattering and there's too much clicking involved before you can get at any information. It feels to me like you're guilty of the same sorts of faults that you're criticizing.

I'm assuming that the humour is intentional but I find it a bit too thick. There's nothing wrong with humour in art but I think GWAFA needs a little more balance. I see jokes but I don't really see the serious side. This ties in with my next comments. Should galleries really all be slick and clean and "exceptionally neutral"? In my opinion, some artwork works better in a run down gallery and some artwork looks really out of place in a slick gallery. I think that having a range of galleries is beneficial to the arts. On whose authority are good walls and floors deserving of an award? I'm not saying they aren't, just suggesting that if you're going to present this as serious art then you should perhaps ask yourself these questions (and attempt to answer them on your site).

best r.
Pall Thayer

Hi Paul, thanks for your reply,

I have been considering how to present the website, I was going for something that looks like it is trying to be smart, but as you say ends up with 'faults' just like those the galleries are often criticized for in the reviews. The reason I have done this is because I view the 'Phillip Rogers' who has done this site as a somewhat flawed character. I used my name and photos as I have been playing this character by making the website and doing the reviews. This was perhaps a mistake or confusing when you know that Phillip Rogers is actually a real person as well, i.e. me.

I had the idea when I was helping to decorate for a degree show, thinking that despite the considerable amount of effort that goes into preparing a space, the exhibiting artists would be perturbed if the viewers were enthusiastic particularly about the walls and floors and not the art, or indeed criticized them because they walls and floors were not done very well. I am intending to play on the insecurities of those who do take this process of 'neutralization' very seriously. For example, in one of the galleries I visited recently one person there was nervous about the prospect of me reviewing their walls and floors in a negative way.

Obviously I am not sincere in the sentiments expressed in the reviews, nor do I think I have any authority over the subject and I certainly don't think that there should only be one type of gallery decor i.e. white walls and grey or wooden floors. It is the character that does, and he is supposed to be a little bit neurotic and absurd, I also pictured that he would not be great at web design. I hope by this to reflect a certain amount of the absurd and neurotic in gallery installation, a process which can be taken very seriously but is normally not expected to be thought or talked about.

thanks again
Phillip Rogers

I forgot to say can you think of any precedents or sites / artists that may be relevant to this piece, I only have a small grounding as of yet regarding artworks on the internet.

Thanks again

Phillip Rogers

I really liked the site and I picked up right away that the opinions were fictional. It is a fairly standard but not yet over-used technique to make the character and the author be distinct yet share a name. I actually laughed out loud at your site. I showed it to my web art collaborator and she laughed also. I liked the harping about the weather, and I was amused at the idea of the gallery owners being genuinely nervous about their review.

Martha Deed and I did something like this a very long time ago (so the web design is downright primitive) with a poetry collection written by a mother and daughter: http://www.sporkworld.org/penumbrae/

Millie