I hinted at this possibility in the previous chapter and now is the time for an explanation.

You have been told in great length how the values of The Blue Neon couldn’t coexist within the premises of social media. What if this was not true anymore; while still carrying a trace of verity? Impossible. From your perspective, it’s either a Shrödinger situation or me bending reality to my will. A litmus test and a watershed moment in the history of this place (well, that was perhaps an overly dramatic statement).

This situation leaves me wondering how am I supposed to reconcile my former views with my current needs; and most importantly how am I supposed to keep your trust despite what appears to be a betrayal. Breaking down my train of thought seems like the only reasonable path to avoid sounding like someone confessing a crime. It starts here and will only stop when you have granted me the necessary redemption, you be the judge.

The Blue Neon: a slow-looking online gallery enabling visitors to reclaim their attention via art contemplation.
Social media: designed for constant stimulation and quick interactions that impact negatively our attention span.
Logical outcome: no presence on social media and a reliance on traditional marketing techniques.
Field observation: they require more time, more investment and more people.
Problem: none of that is available at our end at this stage.
Result: a lack of exposure that equals to no legitimacy while legitimacy being the mandatory currency to persuade artists to exhibit here.
Solution: getting exposure swiftly via social media.
Conundrum: contradiction with our values and original positioning.
Proposal: an ironic dip into the world of these attention grabbing platforms.
Consequence: an uncomfortable compromise.
Summary and closing thought: it feels like until everything is up & running, I am left with no choice but that one.

The tension in my body reaches a new high. Reneging on one of the very principles that defines this place, is this how this decision should be read or my ego facing a reality check instead? Well, I simply don’t know. The strengths of such platforms are well known and could be leveraged on in order, first, to reassure (not sure this is the appropriate verb) the artists and then, to create some momentum. Yet it does sound woeful and even boring to the extreme to kneel to them without bringing any edge to the play, there must be a way to reap the benefits while still being…The Blue Neon. Yet whatever we publish on them - an homogenised edginess or a conceptual flatness - the impact on the visitors will be similar in terms of brain chemistry. End of this screed, complaint over.

In the past few weeks, intense discussions and synchronicities have opened a window where I believe all could coexist, so time for action.

Politics aside, the main drawbacks of these social media - to me - are the following: forced content creation to stay relevant, standardisation of said content among creators, decline in viewers’ attention span and overall addiction. I’ll strive to avoid the first two traps laid before me, but what worries me is playing a part in the other two.

Could I lure you with a cryptic post out of a scrolling frenzy into a more thorough substance, whether the gallery directly, this book or even a longer visual composition (to be determined, but highly desirable for reasons I will provide). The idea isn't to collect followers who expect new content regularly, but to build legitimacy, an online presence could be worth hundreds of emails.

The content won’t be the content per se, but more like an unconventional movie trailer. The new strategy still requires some (over) thinking, but we currently favour the following schizophrenia as an option A: a brief text-only post on a visual platform and being art-centered while not talking about art at the same time. Option B has a different approach with a close-up on part of an artwork, accompanied by an out of the ordinary statement (same as proposed on The Blue Neon).

Grant me forgiveness.

Yours Sincerely,

BLUE