Hi Paul, thanks for your reply,
I have been considering how to present the website, I was going for something that looks like it is trying to be smart, but as you say ends up with 'faults' just like those the galleries are often criticized for in the reviews. The reason I have done this is because I view the 'Phillip Rogers' who has done this site as a somewhat flawed character. I used my name and photos as I have been playing this character by making the website and doing the reviews. This was perhaps a mistake or confusing when you know that Phillip Rogers is actually a real person as well, i.e. me.
I had the idea when I was helping to decorate for a degree show, thinking that despite the considerable amount of effort that goes into preparing a space, the exhibiting artists would be perturbed if the viewers were enthusiastic particularly about the walls and floors and not the art, or indeed criticized them because they walls and floors were not done very well. I am intending to play on the insecurities of those who do take this process of 'neutralization' very seriously. For example, in one of the galleries I visited recently one person there was nervous about the prospect of me reviewing their walls and floors in a negative way.
Obviously I am not sincere in the sentiments expressed in the reviews, nor do I think I have any authority over the subject and I certainly don't think that there should only be one type of gallery decor i.e. white walls and grey or wooden floors. It is the character that does, and he is supposed to be a little bit neurotic and absurd, I also pictured that he would not be great at web design. I hope by this to reflect a certain amount of the absurd and neurotic in gallery installation, a process which can be taken very seriously but is normally not expected to be thought or talked about.