PLEASE READ THROUGH AND RESPOND TO YOUR CLASSMATE’S BLOG ENTRIES BELOW AND MY QUESTION. KEEP THE CONVERSATION FOCUSED ON THE SUBJECT OF ART, ART VIDEOS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN AND ART AS DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLES.
In David’s blog he writes on the future of art – so tied in history to being an object or something that can be traded:
The rarity of the exclusive meme has plagued the digital age. No longer are we confined to the walls of a museum or even our own television room. The internet has exploded with the perversity of sharing, saving, and disseminating media. Viral videos are hot until they are not and shared upon a limb. What do we (millennials) need to see that we can’t see on our personal devices? Art, movies, songs are basically free and accessible everywhere we go. Digitization has robbed the exclusivity of galleries, which is most likely the reason why the museum goer has an average demographic of being older. Millennials have no need to travel to see what they can on a point and click. This is an uncertain future for artists as we see in the music world. 10 years ago a cd cost close to 20 dollars but today all we have to do is go on YouTube. Artists like Adele and Beyonce have limited the use of their art to certain media locations and have taken great steps to limit the exposure to free sites in order to preserve their art form so that the exclusivity leads to dollars. This cannot continue due to the perversity of the internet but they keep the artform afloat and provide a glimmer of hope to established artists worldwide. We as a society have to preserve our artists through the exclusivity, however we are not willing to because free is usually better than exclusivity.
James also touches upon this in his blog:
Do you have to bring your computer to a gallery for it to be perceived as the original? If you make DVD’s to sell are they better quality then the wide circulation YouTube video? What prevents one from buying a DVD that is signed /numbered, copying it on to other DVD’s and selling it for cheaper? How to you value a DVD copy?
Based on David’s and James’ thoughts, WITHOUT discussing music, what future do you see for the traditional field of art now seen in the galleries and the museums? What future does Claire Bishop see? In a world of “the digital divide” what function will art have?
6 Comments
James and David both brought up good points about having recreated media that can produce the same quality at the fraction of the price. There isn’t anything wrong with this when looking at it in a literal sense, but the artists who create the work aren’t making money when we view their art this way. I think traditional art will never actually become obsolete because there is something about traditional artwork that will always be “in style.” While digital art opens up the channels of creativity, bringing art back to the basics is never a bad thing. There is no art form that is superior to the next. I think there is something to be said about the surrealness of the footage that we can create in videos when using technology in art as well as using technology (such as cameras/video cameras) to create art. When visual forms of art, such as photography and video came to light, they were embraced and I feel it is because the things they captured were comprehensible to the public. Although angles and lighting are able to depict a totally different emotion than initially intended, when you add the extra element of technology, it has the potential to add an extra dimension to your work.
David and James: One idea for the art of the future is having it lay out on Freemium and Premium levels. Artists can lure users in with free-ish works of their art, and users craving more can get access to their art on paid Premium level. With the rise of big data, free-and-Premiums could also give artists metrics on who is paying attention to their art that they couldn’t get before. Keeping the big picture in mind, this gives artists visibility while maintaining exclusivity and keeping bootleggers out of it.
Claire Bishop would say that the above thoughts signal the end of art exclusive to museums in art galleries. Art has met the digital world where sharing is the norm and exclusivity has no option than to be uncontained.
I believe the future of galleries and museums are soon to be be numbered and I believe that falls into the hands of the artists. Artists can choose between keeping their art in the museums or offering it on the internet to a wider audience. The internet has such a wide and powerful reach that it is never easy resisting. The internet is such an easy tool to use to share, that it’s almost more efficient to offer art on the internet rather than in museums. The other side of this is whether exclusivity makes art more valuable. To that I would argue that it doesn’t. Just because the art is more accessible doesn’t mean the art is devalued. Making art more accessible could lead to fresh new perspectives and new eyes who would’ve never seen it otherwise.
Both David and James brings up this interesting point about the authenticity of a digital work of art. David talks about preserving an artist’s work in relationship with exclusivity so much so that the work is authentic, while James talks about this idea of the irrelevance of authenticity in the digital world. I have to agree with both stances, but I believe authenticity almost coincides with the time. The virtual world we live in is a collaborative one. Nothing in essence is original so to say, because we are constantly expanding on our ideas through this notion of collaboration, which the digital world helps us achieve. Being able to share, save and be exposed to works of art is helpful in the sense that it contributes to further artwork. Therefore, authenticity in the digital world seemingly lies in collaboration, inspiration and exposure of existing works of art and it’s contribution to future works of art.
Both David and James raise relevant points about exclusivity vs. artistry and monetary incentives. However, I do not think it has to be one or the other. If you embrace “the digital divide” then you can get ahead of it and monetize it. Look at street artists like Banksy. Their work is pervasive and shared freely but they’ve still managed to garner commercial success. I think the concept of exclusivity in art is evolving, now it’s more about being in the know than having actual barriers or limits to access art. “Dead drops” are a great example: http://thehigherlearning.com/2015/02/08/artist-embeds-usb-drive-dead-drops-in-walls-and-buildings-all-across-new-york-city/ In the future, I see galleries and museums having fully digital and shareable companion content with exclusive “easter eggs” for each work of art. Claire Bishop has a somewhat pessimistic view: “We don’t ask how big a show is anymore, but how long: A tiny gallery can contain days of art. The result is that we filter and graze, skim and forward.” I think art will always make people stop in their tracks, analyze, then reflect regardless of what medium it is in a world of “the digital divide.” As long as art makes you think or feel something then it is functioning correctly.
The future of traditional art in galleries and museums will probably be stable (although the same cannot be said for modern art) since, as Claire Bishop mentions, “as the digital archive increases exponentially… [the contemporary artist] exhibits a conspicuous preoccupation with the past, revisiting marginal histories…”. This nostaglia is still evident today in the masses, who look to idealized versions of the past, because these idealized versions of the past help identify one’s present culture. The fate of “modern art” is more uncertain because most modern art museums still use old technologies like celluloid, and they use it to such an extent that it is becoming redundant. While the value of an antique painting, for example, is pretty clear, the value of film art in museums is not as we are moving towards digital media that can be disseminated (with value intact) with ease. For example, an artist copy of video art can be forged and the replica’s value would be questioned. However, a forged painting would definitely be considered worth a lot less than the original. Claire Bishop sees the reluctance of contemporary artists to use modern technology as a problem, as she believes technology will eventually render their art useless. The function of traditional art will be stable, whereas the function of “modern” art will be unstable in the digital divide.