I recently came across a blog featured in the Huffpost Arts & Culture that made me think about some things. It was written by Jason Landry an artist/gallery owner who wrote about the importance of art galleries.
He says, "The gallery mode, as we know it, is flawed". What he is referring to here is the use of technology such as the web/internet. He points this out as being the reason for the defective way art is now being viewed.
He also seems to think that this new way of viewing art has encouraged the art consumer to do other things, "...more people can view the work online and decide if they like it enough to leave their house to visit the gallery, or attend the opening reception, or just stay in to watch another night of reality television".
He then offers his assumption that his observation also contains a flip side,"...maybe the artist sees marketing the work to a critical mass over the web beneficial to their career. Or maybe it's the collector who would like to see the work online first to get a sense of what they might want to acquire".
Art is a business, yes it also can encompass many other things but a gallery is a business. In order to make a business profitable, you need to be accommodating to the consumer.
I see that the statements he made were all pointing to the fact that the consumer was being benefited by the "flawed" way art is being seen, bought, and sold today. That I see as a positive, not as a negative strike against the art world.
He then goes on to say, "Artists and dealers know that art must be experienced in person to truly get a sense of its magnitude--it's the outsiders who don't get that".
Here is where I would like to draw special attention to the word "outsiders". I believe this attitude of dividing people in the art world as those who get it and those who don't is why many artists have turned to the web/internet to get their artwork shown and noticed.
Although he does have a point that seeing art in person can give a viewer much more visual accuracy, this does not mean that seeing art online is taking away from the art itself.
Independent artisans are utilizing a marketing vehicle that enables them to get their work shown and bought. There is no exclusivity when it comes to the web/internet. All artists and consumers of art are able to partake in this exchange.
I feel that marketing your work via the web/internet has given more freedom to artisans everywhere. It has provided them an outlet that many galleries have not allowed them.
I am not against art galleries, I actually love visiting them. I just wanted to point out that as an artist and a consumer of art, the web/internet has done a remarkable job of opening doors for many artists that a gallery is just not able to do.
There is room for both the gallery and the web/internet for art makers and art lovers. Working as a team which provides inclusion, can benefit the art world. Working across the aisle is conducive to maximizing the benefits for all involved.
I really liked your analysis and conclusion in this blog post. I agree there is a place for both the gallery and the internet in displaying art. Some people, in rural areas for instance would be unable to view and appreciate art such as those in urban areas do. I think the internet really opens up the artistic world to more people thus enriching their lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree LinZ, art is enriching for the viewer and the creator, so making it available to all, for all, by all is the only way to go.
ReplyDelete