1. Meeting one weekly deadline gives him enough anxiety.
2. Good blogs require daily updating and constant tending, and he thinks he wouldn't be able to keep up.
3. A self-proclaimed "techo-caveman," the critic says he has no idea how to do anything except type in his Status Bar and to go to "His Name."
4. He thinks he has more control over the audience on Facebook because he can de-friend the wingnuts. On blogs, commenters aren't required to sign their names and when they do, there's no guarantee that they are, in fact, who they say they are. Being a regular reviewer, he's made plenty of enemies over the years and is afraid he'll be harassed.
5. The critic doesn't know how to use a digital camera, doesn't want to learn, and thinks blogs without pictures are boring. (Note to self: Include more images on Two Coats of Paint.)
UPDATE: The critic responded via the Wall on my Facebook page. Here's what he posted:
"Thanks for posting my thoughts on blogs. You left [out] one of my entries on blogs. I tried to post it in your comments but couldn't figure out how to post a comment (!):
I love reading blogs but I find them more Royalist than democratic; they center around 1 NAMED PERSON & a hive of unnamed others. The reason I like FB is that we all have to be more VULNERABLE. That is the key element.
On blogs I'm often attacked; no problem; bring it on. I sometimes hate my own work too. But no one signs their own name. Often it is the same person writing under different names, an artist who feels slighted by me, or an artist who I have given a bad review to, or the friend of an artist who I gave a bad review to, an artist who feels ignored by me, a dealer cross about getting a bad review or no review. That is the reason that unsigned entries provide no resonance for my work, no true sounding. Again, it lacks the crucial element for me: Radical Vulnerability.