READ THIS “ARTICLE” FIRST to understand wtf I’m talking about. ***WARNING*** the article contains an adult “goatse” image, although hard to make out unless you know what you’re looking at.***
It is certainly a fake, and has pissed a lot of people off… I posted portions of my own remarks (below) in the comments section of the original article, but felt I needed to say it here as well.
—————————————————–
I think some people have missed the point of the Detales blog. The point is to challenge reality, to spark discussion–at least that was my interpretation–and in that respect (whether you love it or hate it) Detales is a success. Combing through the site for the first time, I loved and hated it all at once.
The fact that this particular post (same as above) got 60+ comments so quickly, spawned multiple discussions on other sites, was passed to me through IM throughout the day yesterday, AND has Digg users examining the submission and rating features of the site means it had fairly good impact.
But to those railing about the site and screaming that it isn’t art… Since when are satire and humor not forms of art? Was it when so many were bamboozled and took it for real? The “fine print” of this site (a simple click off the main page, I might add) says “There will be articles, fake and real…”
To me, the really provocative parts of this article are not within the article itself, but are the astoundingly clear examples of terrifying human behavior it illuminated.
The fact that many people (even though they watched the entire debate live and never saw the goatse image) believed it to be true is very scary. They took their own experience, their own FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of the event and tossed it out, substituting an internet claim for their own reality, swallowing the fake with ease. Some even claimed “I thought I saw something!” to cover the possibility that they might have missed it.
The other is that people don’t take the time to examine a source. I went to Detales, lured by the headline, and immediately clicked to find out more about the site. I want to know the who, what, and why behind the ideas presented to me. Doesn’t anyone else anymore? If you had read that when you first came to the site, would you have gotten so mad? How can you get mad when it says right out in the open what the site is about, what the purpose is?
You’re mad because you were duped. You’re mad because it made you aware of how easily it can be done. You’re not mad because this site showed up on Digg. You’re mad because you or someone you know was caught being a sheep. You’re mad because you might have to start thinking independently instead of believing everything you read.
Filed under: Genius at Work, The Opposite of Genius
I wanted to thank you personally for writing this article on my blog.
Indeed, the purpose of my blog is not to make money (I even took down my ads to prove this) or to exploit anyone. The blog IS intended to be a statement not only in the articles, but in the person’s reaction to the article.
I do not try to deceive anyone, it is explicit in the “What are Detales?” section of the website that articles are fake as well as real.
Furthermore, the fake articles are more than meaningless satire. The reason they become so big is because of how they are perched on the people’s conscience. They are intended to strike notes with people, make them react, and encourage discussion even on events that have not happened.
But thanks for the writeup. I do try to keep in touch with my readers, it’s just I don’t enjoy responding to people who have nothing better to do than petition my website.
Sincerely,
ben
It’s the possibilities you present, it’s the fun you poke (the Lindsay Lohan helps terrorists article was fun, as well as provocative if you think about it for more than 10 seconds) at the media, society, people, the Hivemind, etc.
Art can be funny and still be provocative. And…for the record, I think satire (outside of modern SNL, god what a waste) is rarely meaningless.
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.