Conclusion
"Snow House" by Lisa N. Jones
By looking at those three areas we can draw conclusions about the interactions between the internet and the art world at large. Yes, the art world is changing; culture is a constantly evolving beast. What’s more important than a literal change in the world of art (a change in medium or style or taste) pales in comparison to the psychological one. What are most exciting about this time are the shifts in the collective mind of the art world.
Artists are redefining what it means to be an artist. Not only are they finding a way to express themselves with a new technology, but they’re redefining the role of the artist itself. Traditionally, artists were static creators – they created their work and displayed it. Today, more and more daring artists are tiptoeing along the wall between audience and crowd. Some are breaking through and making the fabric of the crowd itself their canvas; others are merely asking their audience to play the part of the artist.
Others are using the rise of the internet to change the traditional paths to success. Commercially, this means that a potential artist doesn’t necessarily have to toil in obscurity, travel through the right channels and hope that they get discovered. Instead, commercial artists, comedians, musicians, animators, and graphic designers can work outside the system and create their own fame on their own terms: if the project becomes popular enough, it might be picked up or it might be better to simply stay on the internet. When it comes to fine art, however, the same principals apply. Art can be viral. A piece can become famous with little more than an obscure post on a photo hosting site.
Still others are creating their own collectives and art societies. Social networking sites are becoming the new Parisian cafés, the new salons, the new artist colonies. Unlike the past, however, nearly anyone from anywhere can join in. These sites are overcoming the last great obstacle for human connectivity – distance. Now, literally anyone with an internet connection can post their art and take part in a community and enjoy the experience of an artistic culture.
This leads us to an obvious question: are all of these changes a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing? The terms themselves are arbitrary, and like all absolutes the answer may be a little of both. Naysayers may claim that this democratization of art is ultimately a bad thing, and will (as Frank Statiso phrases it) “water things down.”[1] In this case, they may be taking the role of the realists during the trial of photography: threatened and scared by a new art form. But what do the artists think?
“I think that people who aren’t technologically adept are going to be left behind,” Lisa Jones says when asked the question. “There is a bit of a concern that since [Adobe] Photoshop is so good that a lot of this stuff will become outdated.”[2]
“I forget the name of the corollary,” Ursula Vernon replies, “but 90% of everything is crap. But because there is no publishing bar, you can find a lot of stuff out there that’s really cool and innovative that you wouldn’t find otherwise.”[3]
“I think it’s good,” Kelly Turnbull answers, “and I think if you say it’s bad you’re just being stubborn about it… that potential for audience is such a huge advantage. You still need to work.”[4]
Right now, it may be safe to conclude that these changes are a good thing. But what of the future? We won’t know until we get there. Like culture, the future is vague and constantly changing just beyond our grasps. Who knows what pieces of fabric we may find? Who knows what the next canvas will be? The only certainty is that it will change; until then, we can enjoy the way this current technology is rocking the boat.
[1] (Holderfield, Vernon, & Feese, 2008)
[2] (Jones, 2009)
[3] (Holderfield, Vernon, & Feese, 2008)
[4] (Turnbull, 2009)
