In de uitvoering is de video niet sterk, in het idee dat het aandraagt wel. De in Dorchester, Boston wonende fotograaf David J. Stokle toont in een galerie in Boston zijn ‘Evil Icons’ project. Op zijn homepage legt hij in een ouder bericht uit hoe dat ontstond. Stokle werd geïnspireerd door de voorpagina van augustus 2013 van het tijdschrift Rolling Stone met de flatterende Facebook-profielfoto van Boston Marathon-terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Van het een kwam het ander. Het is een project in wording waar president Donald Trump ook aan toegevoegd is. Is dit geen idee voor Nederlandse kunstenaars om ‘kwade iconen’ of ‘kwaadaardige idolen’ in een project te vereeuwigen? Denk aan Piet Hein, Koning ‘Gorilla’ Willem III, Anton Mussert, Anton van der Waals, Raymond Westerling én Poncke Princen, en hedendaagse politici die volgens velen de duivel in zich dragen? In de verte doet dit project van David Stokle denken aan wat de in London gevestigde Otolith Group doet. Zoals met het project ‘In the Year of the Quiet Sun’ waarin politiek, geschiedenis, (toegepaste) kunst en vormgeving werden gecombineerd. Welke kunstenaar of fotograaf transformeert dit naar Nederland?
George Knight 
What do you mean, “in execution”, the video is not strong?
LikeLike
And what do you mean, a combination of left and right values? Just trying to understand your logic. Were you for or against this video? And do you think it was poorly done? I don’t understand your review at all
LikeLike
@Anoniem
I mean to say that I think it is an interesting video full of good ideas, but not a strong video. That is my personal judgment.
I do not understand what you are saying about ‘left and right values’. I don’t say anything about that. I make a plea to encourage Dutch artists to do the same in their own country. So I’m positive about the idea of the Evil Icons, otherwise I wouldn’t have paid attention to it.
LikeLike
“It is not a strong video”. Why do you say that without explaining why it is not a strong video? What made it weak? What could have been done better? You make zero claims to back up your arguments. “I am positive about the idea of Evil Icons” Why? Why would they be good in Dutch? All you mention is that you think the idea is cool, and you don’t say why. You say things without explaining them. I like your writing and topics, but I wish you would elaborate and be more detailed not just in this post, but in your other ones. If you want to be a journalist or have people value your opinions, you need to back up your statements. Saying “that is my personal judgement” gives us NO CONTEXT, background, reasoning, or description. Why write reviews if you’re just going to make sweeping claims without defending yourself?
LikeLike
Also, can you tell me who found this video and who is the company that made this? Do you have a connection with them? I’d like to reach out to them and maybe watch more like this, and that is why I followed your blog, for contextual, detailed descriptions about politics, culture, art, and history…not your opinion shoved down our throats all the time, please. I’m asking and I mean this in the most respectful way.
LikeLike
And one more question: Do you realize that your blog criticizing videos and research articles that probably took hours to make (I don’t know, just speculating), while your “post” probably took less than 10 minutes to say that you think Evil Icons are cool and just link a video. Please put more effort into your content and descriptions. This is MY constructive criticism for you, notice how I didn’t blindly say “I don’t like your writing!”
LikeLike
@Anoniem
You seem to want to misunderstand me. I am enthusiastic about the idea and the artist and have therefore paid attention to it. There is little point in putting me in the corner of criticism. I have no contact with the makers or David Stokle. All information about Stokle and the filmmaker can be derived from public sources.
LikeLike
But how did you even FIND this video? And who is the girl talking at the beginning? And I understand that you are “enthusiastic about the idea”, you already said that. But my problem is that’s literally all you say. You don’t review the video or talk about why you thought it was “not strong” (as you put it). You don’t even give an overview or summary for people who might want to read your post before watching. All you say is basically” it would be cool to do Dutch evil icons” and you don’t say why. And again, you took 1 minute to write this post, putting in no effort to explain your reasoning. I am not being rude, I am just trying to understand why you refuse to go into details about things. What made the video “not strong” and why? How could the video be improved? What would you rate it? What was the tone if it? There is so many more details you could have given us, but I’d rather skip your “commentary” and watch it myself. You need to actually add to the discussion, just saying. Again, I mean this in a positive way as I feel like your blog has a lot of great potential, but your curt responses and descriptions aren’t doing you any favors.
LikeLike
@Anoniem
The video can be found publicly on YouTube. That’s how I found it.
I seem to have hit an open nerve with you. I see no reason for that because I am positive about this art project by David Stokle. To better understand that because you present yourself anonymously so far, please indicate your relationship with David Stokle or Chanel Rose.
It is true that I am not reviewing the video. I give my opinion about it and make a link to the Dutch situation. That is the freedom I have as a columnist. I don’t have to justify that to others.
I asked a single Dutch artist if they could ‘translate’ this to the Dutch situation (with their own native Evil Icons). I express my appreciation for the work of Stokle and think ‘Evil Icons’ is a strong series that deserves wider attention. Hence my attention to it.
I leave everything else you say on your own behalf.
LikeLike
Hey George Knight, “freedom as a columnist” sounds like an excuse for you not to do your homework. I’m trying to help you here. You don’t explain how you found the video. That video has a very small number of views and is brand new on YouTube, so I don’t see how you could have found it unless you have some sort of underlying feud against either the artist himself, David Stokle, or that girl who made the video. No way you just “randomly found it”, you must know someone who worked on it and decided to attack them. You criticize Stokle’s presentation style, the editing, the video production, then claim you like the idea and thought it was cool, totally contradicting yourself. I found it by searching for Trump as politics deeply interest me, but I feel compelled to speak up as a journalist myself. You put no effort into backing up your claims and to make your writing better, you should explain yourself more. Your subject matter is good, but YOUR execution is poor. Now imagine if I said that with no context? I’d like to know why you can’t just elaborate on the subject and satisfy my hunger. I was going to publish you on my website, but then I read your writing and decided against it, if you simply added more details, maybe I could give you a mention.
LikeLike
@Anoniem
Ah, you identify yourself as a conspiracy thinker. At the same time, you declare yourself as a journalist. One and the other is difficult to combine. You don’t want to accept the facts that I give you.
The twists in your head are interesting and above all have something to say about yourself.
I still don’t understand your criticism. Which nerve of yours have I touched? The only critical note I crack is that I say that I think the execution of the video by Chanel Rose is ‘not strong’. Note, I’m not saying I think the execution is ‘bad’. I don’t go that far.
Again, I do not in any way disapprove of David Stokle’s work. On the contrary, I show my appreciation for him. For the sake of clarity, because you don’t understand that, his work is not the video by Chanel Rose.
Your projections, suspicions, twists in your head are highly entertaining. Your threat is ridiculous. You make yourself a practical joke. Nice wit.
LikeLike
Are you trolling or something? If you say that the execution is “not strong”, that is another way of saying that the video is bad. There is no difference. Saying strongly executed would mean it was well done, saying that it’s “not strongly executed” means it was done poorly or badly. I’d like you to defend yourself if that’s not true. And then again, you say your appreciation for David Stokle, but then you implied that his presentation skills were poor (poor execution) and don’t even back up your claim of appreciation. I don’t know about you, but I’m not going to blindly accept your facts unless you can back up your claims and explain what you say. You also never explained how you found the video, even though I ask multiple times, just proving you probably have a beef or problem with David Stokle or the girl who made the video. It’s also suspicious how your blog is in Dutch yet you know English perfectly. Why else would you passively aggressively insult someone’s project and a man’s artwork?
LikeLike
And the video is literally about David Stokle and his artwork. He is the one talking throughout. So by saying the execution is poor, you seem to be saying that he is a bad speaker and should have vocalized himself better, even though I personally think he did excellent. The girl literally just gives him the stage to talk and it is all his commentary, so you are contradicting yourself again.
LikeLike
@Anoniem
Again, the work of David Stokle and its reporting by Chanel Rose are not identical. Apparently you don’t understand that difference.
Again, the video is publicly available on YouTube. That’s how I found it. I have no contact with anyone in the Boston area who is involved in any way with the video.
Your polemic tone is not constructive. You can keep trying to blame me for negativity, but I’m positive about this art project by David Stokle.
LikeLike
No, you just got caught saying that you thought it was “poorly executed” (meaning Stokle’s explanations and projects were weak), and are now trying to cover your tracks by saying that you meant the video was not strong. “The video is publicly available on YouTube”. Sure, so out of the millions and millions of videos on YouTube, you just happened to stumble across this one? You are a liar and your blog is not credible at all. If you are such a journalist, why won’t you explain 1. how you found the video, 2. why in your eyes, it’s “poorly executed, and 3. why you state you’re “positive about this project by stoke”, yet the video is all about his project and you say that it’s all poorly executed.
LikeLike
You are shaming and degrading movies without giving any constructive feedback about what could have been done better, or how makers/the actors (in this case Stokle and the chick) could have put on a better performance. I am averse to critics like you, and you seem to have no understanding of the filmmaking process, nor even the decency or basic understanding of how to write an adequate movie review or blog post.
LikeLike
@Anoniem
No, you are wrong. You exceed reasonableness with your suspicions. They mainly say something about your mistrust. You project everything on me, but that is only your imagination. I’m not saying anywhere that the video is “poorly executed.” Only you say that. And then you attack your own projection of mine. That appears to be a serious case of identity confusion.
It’s amazing to pretend you don’t know the difference between an artist’s work and a news media reporting on it. Those are two different things.
LikeLike
And it’s amazing how you try to pass off a sub-part and mediocre review of people’s work as a failure on their part, not yours. You don’t even explain why you thought the execution was poor. You could have talked about the lighting, the music, the images, the tone, David’s presentation, David’s commentary, the vibe, the scenery, the quotes, but instead, you write it all off as “execution that is not strong” without backing up your claims. And actually, YOU are the poor media that does a poor job reporting on it, as your blog is about news and politics, meanwhile David’s project and that girl’s video seem to be just passion projects.
LikeLike
@Anoniem
You repeat yourself with your projections. I’m not saying the execution of the video was poor. Only you say that.
It is best that we disagree. For the umpteenth time I am enthusiastic about David Stokle’s ‘Evil Icons’ project. That is why I paid attention to it from an idea to make it accessible to a Dutch audience.
I give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean well, but by trying to associate David Stokle with negativity you achieve the opposite of what you are aiming for. With your suspicions and conspiracy, you are infecting my positive appreciation for this Stokle project, and indirectly Stokle’s work.
LikeLike
“not strongly executed” = poorly executed. I am just trying to help your writing, and I asked you the same questions for the umpteenth time (why you’re saying it’s poorly executed, how you found the video, why you won’t go into more detail, and if you know you’re indirectly degrading David’s work). You refuse to answer and I just want answers, because I am totally fed up of you constantly using this blog to make claims without evidence, and this poorly written post you did just takes the cake.
LikeLike
@Anoniem
You are entitled to your opinion. But I can add nothing more if you enter the domain of the imagination with it. It is best to answer for yourself why you are doing so.
LikeLike
“I can add nothing more if you enter the domain of the imagination with it”….translation “I’m too lazy and can’t explain my own review”
LikeLike
@Anoniem
I hope David Stokle joins this debate to give it some gravitas from Boston or Suffolk County. With your suspicions and opinions you endanger a balanced debate.
LikeLike
Well, in a way, I’m helping your blog, because I believe in your posts and I think you have potential. I’m a journalist simply trying to help you elaborate on your work. Every post I make creates engagement on your blog and can get you more eyeballs, you know that, right?
LikeLike