I hinted at this possibility in the previous chapter and now is the time for full disclosure.

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. Consider it a watershed moment in the history of this place (that's an overly dramatic statement).

The current 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. Should it be the case, you be the judge to grant me the necessary redemption.

The Blue Neon: a slow looking online gallery enabling visitors to reclaim their attention via art contemplation.
Social media: platforms designed for constant stimulation and quick interactions, impacting negatively our attention span (among others flaws).
Logical outcome: no presence on social media and a reliance on traditional marketing techniques.
Field observation: these techniques 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 and unorthodox dip into the world of these attention grabbing platforms.
Consequence: an uncomfortable compromise.
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.

It does sound woeful - and even boring - to capitulate without bringing any edge to the game. There must be a way to reap the benefits while still being … The Blue Neon. Yet, whatever and however we publish on social media, the impact on your brain chemistry is similar, as we will just be feeding them and being part of something we can't control.

In the past few weeks, intense discussions and synchronicities have opened a window where I believe values and reality 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 composition? Convincing you to visit the gallery, to read this book or to explore a longer video (an highly desirable goal). 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 unconventional statement (same as proposed for artists on The Blue Neon). Or both options?

Grant me forgiveness.

Yours Sincerely,

BLUE