How does the ease of internet posting effect art culture?
From Internet: Knowledge and Community
Description
Anyone with a computer and internet connection can post for free on blogs, sites like youtube, deviantART, etc. The internet makes it easy for artists to put their work where the public can see it. But with so many users posting, it creates a sea of self proclaimed artists. Does the ease of internet posting devalue artwork (especially with so many amateurs)? Or is does it help unknown artists in their struggle to become recognized?
Responses
With the internet there is defiantly more quantity out there and much harder to find quality. However the internet is a very useful tool for helping an artist becoming recognized. Good examples are web-comics and entertaining youtube videos. Usually if something is good people will look at it and will probably share the link with their friends. In a professional realm youtube and deviantArt can be used as part of your portfolio as the internet is more mainstream in job hunting since it's very easy to access and available. Also with the vast amount of information on the internet there are "how to" guides if an artist is having trouble or wants to learn graphic design, photoshop, etc. While showcasing your art the comments section or in an internet forum other artist/viewer can provide criticism to help improve the quality.
Robert Price's Response:
Last quarter we read some chapters from The Dumbest Generation by Mark Bauerlein. In short, Bauerlein argues that the youth of America today are much less intelligent than previous generations even though things like the Internet and computer education have existed for several decades now. American youth today are "the dumbest generation." He backs up everything he claims by providing statistical data on almost every single page!
At one point Bauerlein claims that the youth of today are not visiting museums or art galleries as much as youth from previous generations. A few days ago, I was thinking about this particular claim. I reasoned that while children, teens, and young adults may not be visiting museums or art galleries in the physical sense, sites such as YouTube and deviantART could be the Internet equivalent of these places.
I agree with the above poster. The ability to share what one finds on these sites allows for many, many more people to view the art piece (such as a YouTube video) than an art gallery or museum ever could accommodate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there exists a gallery that could display the same art piece to millions of people, from all over the world, in one second. Television could broadcast artwork to millions of people, of course. But I believe it is different then YouTube (or similar sites) in two ways: (1) one has almost complete freedom of choice in what one watches, and (2) many more people's "voices" are heard than is the case with television.
I agree that people may not be visiting more traditional forms of art galleries as much anymore, but I believe that art on the Internet is in no way inferior to art found within more traditional places of exhibition. Where else can one find the enormous amount of variety, capacity, and ease of access that these Internet "galleries" provide?
I've thought about this as pertains to music. I myself am a musician and have similarly pondered the usefulness of the Internet regarding my own music reaching the masses. As we've seen via Youtube, it's entirely possible for just about anyone to grab their 15 minutes of fame these days; it's precisely because of this that I think quality counts more than ever. If anybody can put their art up for the whole world to see, to me that's all the more incentive to produce the best work one is capable of and to try and find avenues or communities where one can most effectively showcase his/her talents.
The thing is, people need to know where to look, and sometimes they don't always know exactly what it is they are looking for. Sites like CD Baby have helped me considerably to reach people who might otherwise not have heard me or my band. It's about making your art available anytime, anywhere, and as peer to peer bit torrent downloading has proved, anyone can find just about any song if they're willing to search for it. Basically, I think art has gone far beyond selling out and has found it's way back to being the voice of the people. This is a good thing, and I believe people will always place a certain value on art that means something to them.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think posting one's work for free on the Internet devalues it in any way. The rules have changed; art/music/whatever is essentially free now. Letting people know you're out there is the biggest thing; the more you concentrate your work in places where people are bound to check it out, the greater are your chances of finding your audience. That could mean 2 people, or it could mean 2,000 people, what's important is that odds are (at least when it comes to music) the people who find you will be more than likely to stumble upon your work based on existing preferences, meaning chances are they will at least be receptive to your art, (this is sort of like the way Pandora works, whereby you tell it what music you like and it attempts to find other similar music you might like as well).
That said, it sure does seem sometimes like finding and recognizing good art is like looking for a needle in a haystack, Internet or no Internet.
~Scott Taylor
