[krisoft]

> While the author doesn't explicitly define what is "great", I 100% believed that what it is defined as.

I understand that is his definition, but then talk about that. Instead of saying that the exhibition ended up "mediocre" say that "ticket sales were lower than expected" or "sold less paintings than we hoped for", or "didn't bring in anybody".

Because as is he just writes "after weeks of this you end up with something mediocre" and "predict which exhibitions would end up great". That is very vibes based. Did he just not enjoy those exhibitions? Or is it tied to something objective outside of his head? (such as revenue, or crowd size, or critical acclaim) The first is not interesting, the second is.

> That he did a good job by "helping grow the revenues"[0].

Or did not do a good job. Base on the very sentence you quote which starts "It helped that the year I started ...". Doesn't give me the impression that even the author believes it is all their doing. Very easily someone could write the same story from a differed perspective "we hired a guy to run the café, but he was way too distracted to keep consistently at it. First he ruffled some feathers with the board then he mellowed out so we kept him around. He pooh-poohed artist who was not as responsive in electronic communication as he would have liked, but we told him softly that is not his decision and to shut it. At the end he was only showing up sporadically and then left to write or something." We only have his world on it and even based on that his track record is less than stelar.

[jonnycomputer]

Yes, this is the situation we are left in. I don't really know of course (and presumably nor do you) whether he was a good employee or made substantive improvements or whatever. It would have helped if he was more specific and concrete in his descriptions.

The biggest failing here is a failing of clear and compelling writing.

[krisoft]

> I don't really know of course (and presumably nor do you) whether he was a good employee or made substantive improvements or whatever.

Yes, absolutely. I don't know anything about him outside of this article. I assume he is a good employee, or they were mostly happy with him (for the simple reason that they kept employing him). Just wrote that part to illustrate that the same facts from his own pen can be also interpreted in a negative light.

> It would have helped if he was more specific and concrete in his descriptions.

I totally agree with that.