Skip to main content

My love affair with Facebook

Why am I starting off NaBloPoMo with a post about Facebook, you ask? Shouldn't I be writing about theaters or grad school or something less, well, trivial? I'll get to those things. This is about a core idea and I'm using my Facebook relationship as an example.
Yes, that is me with Miss Piggy.

I love almost everything about Facebook because of this one thing: it is a platform that engenders building relationships. (I'll get to the one thing I don't like in a bit.) Building relationships is what I do for a living; it is my special gift to this world.

Facebook is designed to connect you with people you have a lot in common with (sometimes IRL, sometimes just online) and then make that relationship deeper by having a conversation about those things/people/ideas. It can happen anytime (unlike Twitter) and across facets of your life (unlike LinkedIn) and with words AND images (unlike Pinterest, Instagram, and Flickr).

I have my current job because of Facebook: both the hire-er and the connector knew me IRL but the relationship grew on Facebook. My husband has his current job because I forced him to post that he was looking for a new gig in his passion and a friend responded they had an opening in his company and it was kismet. Could both of those things have happened outside of Facebook? Probably. As quickly as they did? Unlikely.

People like to hate on Facebook, much like they hate on any organization that changes often and has become the biggest player in its niche. The look or privacy settings or the way posts show up all change. In fact, that is the one thing I Don't like about it: the algorithm underlying the way posts show up isn't helpful, for anyone, really. I wish there was a setting that could I could change to "see everything." As it is, I make judicious use of lists and news feed changes and visit folk's pages when I think I haven't heard anything from them in a while.

Just like we do in real life.

Building relationships--whether online or in the theater--takes time, curiosity, and a penchant for both listening and remembering. Do I have close relationships with the several hundreds of friends on Facebook? Do I have close relationships with the several hundred patrons who attend my theater in a given quarter? The point is that I want to and taking the time every day to connect in a small way helps make that want a reality.

Of course, Facebook doesn't really allow me to do this kind of writing, which is why I'm attempting to work over here more over the next month. I'll be cross-posting, so join the conversation wherever feels most natural. Which, right now for me, is on Facebook.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

High Art vs Low Art

“The masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator.” - -The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin, 1936 Is there any more contentious question in the art world than the concept of “high” versus “low” I like venn diagrams. And shouldn't art really be in the middle?  art? Who gets to judge? What are the parameters in which to judge? There is no standard definition for either concept and personal explanations range from simple to incredibly complex. One common theory about how to explain the difference is high art is “popular” and low art is “unpopular”, that is, appealing (or not) to many people. This also links to another version of the difference: that high art fosters the widest connection between people while a smaller subsection enjoys low art. This is in direct contradiction, though, to the idea of low art being part of mass culture (raising yet another question of “is art culture” or merely a com

Death & The Theater

I was listening to a recent episode of the Tim Ferris podcast and the guest, happiness scholar Arthur C. Brooks, was discussing death meditations. And the little lightbulb in my brain turned on with the thought, "We need to talk more about death in theaters." I know, I know, that seems like an illogical statement because it feels like we're always talking about the death of theater. This whole summer has been filled with articles and op-eds from across the country about how large regional theaters are dying in major cities. But that's not the kind of death Brooks was talking about, and in reality, it isn't death these articles are complaining about, either: they are trying to stay alive in a “E’s just resting” fashion, to find some kind of life-support for the theaters, to keep them going, receive new money from new audiences or donors, new shows, new gimmicks to draw more or different people in the door. Anything to keep from dying. We don't talk about death

Pass the Collection Plate, Please.

Various sizes of buildings, with some sort of seating arranged in rows, facing a slightly raised platform. may have curtains around the platform. people --primarily men-- take the platform to orate to the audience seated before them. A plea for donations is made at some point, either before or after the show, which may have music and will definitely have directives masked as stories on how to be a human in this day-and-age. children will be seen, maybe, but definitely not heard. the men in charge will believe they have been given a special gift for leading this particular group of people. and the people, for whatever reason, will also believe this. and this group of people will believe that their building and person and each other are completely different and somehow better than all the other exact same groups around their town/city/county/state/nation. If theater wants to be treated as church and church as theater, then both are getting exactly what they have been setting up for the p