The other day I went to a lecture and sat through an hour and a half of a ‘conversation with a designer’. For the most part, I spent my time wondering just how much he believed in the verbal bile that he was spewing all over the audience. The thing that disturbed me the most, was how the people around me seemed to be lapping this up.

The premise of the lecture was that through audience participation, we were to vote on whether this renowned(?) designer was a ‘Genius or Wanker’. At the end, a public ballot was held to determine the outcome, by holding up a piece of paper with the respective word on it. More than half of the people voted for the more positive outcome of Genius, but it didn’t seem to match with how he presented himself during this interview.

One of the topics that was discussed was a recent verbal slaughtering that he had received on an online forum. I kind of agreed with what he was saying; about how people might use such an anonymous form of communication to express themselves in a harsh and judgemental way. But would he be complaining about the conduit if someone praised him highly on the very same website? I doubt it, and it seems silly to dismiss the validity of a comment based on how it affects you on a personal level.

So it seems that it’s frowned upon to make negative comments towards an individual. Even if the negative comments are intended to be honest communication. I’ve seen this censorship occur in the absence of the facebook dislike button; where a website will choose to restrict people’s methods of communication (for whatever reasons, I can only speculate).

Jumping back to the present, in this open well lit lecture hall, where work colleagues sit next to each other discussing their vote at the end of  this semi-contrived social experiment. In light of the presumed social stigma of making a negative comment, how are these people expected to make an unbiased vote on this persons character?

Throughout the lecture, I developed the impression that the person we were scrutinising was no more than a regular guy, with strengths and flaws just like anyone else. The thing that did seem to set him apart though, was his desire to repeatedly contradict himself when trying to satisfy the audiences not-so-well thought out questions. We all live with contradictory aspects of our character, but he didn’t seem like he was able to present that to the audience. Without a shovel in sight, he dug his own hole by trying to appease other people. Instead of acceptance, there seemed to be a big dirt pile of denial. Not the kind of person I would say that I admire in any industry.

My Genius idea would be to stage a recount in a completely unbiased environment. I want to believe that the outcome of the vote would be different. But maybe the part of me that’s saying that is just a complete and utter Wanker.