This article that i have attatched questions whether having art online will benifit the artists or not. It shows both positive and negative outcomes to having work online.
One interesting point was that it means less pressure for the artists. There is much more pressure when they put on a gallery because they run the risk of it failing and no one being intersted in any of the work there for losing a lot of money where putting it online creates a safety net, you put ur work up and if no one likes it you havent spent hundreds of dollars putting up for show and can simply take it off and put up another work and hope that one does better.This generation is so filled with techonology with having the Ipod boom and using your computer to now communicate which means we all are ‘plugged in’ so why shouldnt artists be as well?
However the article makes another good point of “if an artist doesn’t feature on a website, do they exist?” if they dont place their works on websites like ‘redbubble’ will they ever be known or will they only be shown to those of an older generation or art collectors who persist to go to galleries? Will the galleries be in danger and risk being shut down for good because of not being needed anymore? If this persists it looks like it will head down that path.
March 10, 2009 at 12:51 am |
ANNA:
I found this article particularly interesting as it centred around Damien Hirst, a renowned post modern artist, and his use of the Internet, reinforcing the prominence and effectiveness of this medium in the arts industries. The quote; ‘True to form, Damien Hirst left the art world in a pickle by setting the benchmark for the commoditization of art’ was particularly relevant to the question of the future for art galleries.
The reference to the ‘ipod generation’ combined with the later quote from Will Ramsay, ‘Online art works because you don’t need to venture into a gallery. People dislike walking into a silent, wooden floored gallery where you feel self-conscious’ highlights the mindset and trend of current generations whom are partial to technological media. In contrast I also liked the quote, ‘In a world where financial markets are alarmingly ‘virtual’, a painting, like gold bullion, is reassuringly tangible’.
March 11, 2009 at 9:32 am |
It does seem that this generation is seeing technology as the ‘only way’ that other forms of selling/buying art is out dated and must be changed to suit our generation. It seems everything like art galleries should be diminished to make way for new and what they concider a better way of doing things.
March 15, 2009 at 6:28 am |
The question of wether or not the introduction of online art spaces will mark the death of traditional gallery is highly debatable, but also largely unpredictable. Looking at the issue from a short-term perspective it is almost imminent that an artist would choose the medium of web technology as a means to display his or her work, rather than a gallery. The reasons for this are obvious; an online art display is significantly cheaper and can be accessed at any time from any location around the world. There is also a guaranteed increase in sales, not only because of the larger audience, but also because of the ease and comfort of doing it from your own home. The anecdote Deakin provides about her experience of buying art online portrays the way an online display reaches an audience that wouldn’t usually buy from a gallery. As the negotiations were not face to face, Deakin found it much easier to bargain a deal she was comfortable with, something her personality would not succeed at during a ‘face to face’ scenario. In this perspective, why would any artist use the means of a gallery when they have the cheap and easy option of the internet? At this stage the process of digging the contemporary art gallery’s grave should be well under way.
However, when we look at the issue from a long term perspective, perhaps the end of art galleries as we know them is not so imminent. The internet has created a way for ‘underground’ artists to present their work to the world in a realistic way. So now any ‘Joe blow’ can draw a picture and put it for sale on the internet. Although this may threaten the well-fare of artist who deserve to make a living from their work, the beauty of it is, if ‘Joe blow’ can’t draw anything half decent then no one is going to buy his work. However, if a talented individual who can’t afford to set up a gallery post their work online they will soon be recognised and people will start buying their work. So the innovative technology of online art galleries has not dampened the art world, but rather flourished it. Now rather than having to be rich and talented to become successful in the art industry, artists only need to be talented. This will surely result in a surge in the number of famous and recognised artists in the world.
But how does this relate to the well-fare of contemporary art galleries. When we look at the issue of ‘gallery’ vs. ‘online art space’ through a long-term perspective, we can see hope for the future of both of them. As Anna stated in her reflection on the online tour of the Louvre, the experience of seeing art work on a computer screen can never compare to the powerful feelings of appreciating art and all it’s dynamics in a real gallery. You can appreciate its size, its texture and its tone when you see a work of art for real. The contemporary gallery will not die because of the connection that can be created between a ‘real’ work of art and its viewer. Thanks to the internet, more artists than ever before will be able to afford to hire out a gallery and display their art to the public. Once underground artists make a name for themselves on the internet it is quite likely that they will still adhere to the traditional display method of a gallery because of the surreal experience that comes with it. This is because the difference between seeing art in a gallery rather than on a computer screen is like the difference between watching a blockbuster action movie at the cinemas or watching it on free to air T.V. with an add break every five minutes.
April 2, 2009 at 7:00 am |
Just in response to Andy’s comments, while insightful, I found the statement; ‘if a talented individual who can’t afford to set up a gallery post their work online they will soon be recognised and people will start buying their work’, a slightly generalisation. Due to the extensive artistic content available on the web, ultimately quantity has greater prevalence than quality. However I do not debate that the Internet is a convenient and cost effective medium for upcoming and even established artists.
The web, however introduces a different focus; marketing is now essential to achieve even remote recognition on the web. As such the site on which artists display and promote work is a crucial factor in their overall success. RedBubble, as discussed in Andy’s latest post (Resource 5), is highly regarded and one of the largest sites of its kind. The developers of the site are devoted to the alignment of interest with the artists, only making money when the artists make money (there no advertising on the site).
I agree with the philosophy that art should not be sensored by regarded art institutions, artists should have the right to display their are and the public should enjoy the right to view this art.