To what extent have the advances of technology, the internet and social media impacted on how we view and consume art? Thesis: Advances in technology have provided us with multiple platforms to express, share and reproduce art at an increasingly fast level. Art no longer only resides in grand galleries for the upper classes to muse at, but in the palm of our hands in the form of a smartphone or tablet. Art is accessible from almost any screen, at any time of the day. Subsequently, could be the death of the traditional art gallery or museum as we know it? Brief Summary of main texts The main texts that I will be using to support and analyse these theories include ‘Ways of seeing’ J. Berger (1972), ‘The death of the author’ R. Barthes (1967), ‘Cultural theory and popular culture’ J. Storey (1996) and ‘Turning out the digital buzz, for an intimate communion with art’ H. Cotter (2015). From pages 18 to 33 in ‘ways of seeing’ Berger (1972) discusses the topic of reproductions in art via print, camera and television. It’s important to note here the date at which this text was published – 1972, As the technological advances mentioned in my thesis (social media, the internet etc) ceased to exist at that point in time. Nonetheless, the impacts that are discussed continue to be relevant to today’s situations where parallels can be found. H. Cotters (2015) article from the New York times is a perfect example of how Berger’s theories can be paralleled with the up to date topic of the use of smartphones and social media to reproduce and redistribute artwork. Cotter’s argument does not champion these modern advances, but instead deliberates as Berger also deliberates the authenticity or real value of what we will refer to as a reproduction. Roland Bathes ‘The death of the author’ (1967) is a text which deals with issues surrounding authorship in the arts (in the context of writing and literature) –the main argument being put forward that in order for progression to happen, there needs to be a disjoint between the author and the work. The text also discusses the importance of the audience and the role they undertake as what we would call the consumer. This brings to light the questions mentioned in the thesis of this essay surrounding the importance of a source/origin or in the context of Barthes text, an author’s presence, and to what effect this has, if any, on the impact of a reader. Considering this text on a wider perspective, you could look at this idea (the removal of an author) in relation to the art gallery and the importance of a gallery curator. If the focus should truly be on the experience audience, as Barthes suggests, or how an individual consumes art, then what use is a pre-planned, pre-arranged gallery curated by someone else when in the palm of our hands we have the ability to curate our own virtual galleries.
Reproduction Berger ‘ways of seeing’ (pg18) describes the experience of viewing art pre-reproduction era rather romantically, ‘the uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where It resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But it could never be seen in two places at the same time. When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of the image.’ (1972) What Berger is suggesting here, is that with the process of reproducing something there’s a loss that takes place to the original. With each reproduction, the painting becomes less and less unique, and that singular experience of the painting is taken away, As Berger describes ‘the meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings’ (1972). But why is this phenomenon necessarily bad? A multitude
of meanings, residing with each individual means that the experience is that of a personal experience, and in that sense, unique to the individual in their interpretation. Here a shift has occurred, the uniqueness Berger implies the original artwork has lost, has instead found a new home with the spectator’s experience. ‘The painting now travels to the spectator, rather that the spectator to the painting’ (1972). This being said, there are other arguments residing in the topic of reproductions. Berger uses the term reproduction when talking about photographs, images on television etc. but as previously mentioned, the text was written in the pre-internet era. The article ‘tuning out the digital buzz, for an intimate communication with art’ H. Cotters (2015) deals with reproduction in the sense of smartphones, social media, the internet – to generalise. And discusses the experience of viewing original artwork in a more tactile sense, than a unique one. What Cotters alludes to is that the experience of viewing art in the physical body is much more rewarding experience than simply flicking through images (reproductions) on a screen. Ultimately there are aspects of art and painting that just can’t be translated on web based content, ‘digital photographs can give a sense of all this. But they can’t inspire the urge to reach out and touch the stone that’s right in front of you, connect with it, skin to skin.’ (2015) Cotters concern with the digital reproduction is the idea that we are losing the physical connection, however he does not suggest that it doesn’t have its uses ‘through electronic media – camphone screens, laptops, Pinterest and skype – we can survey an extraordinary amount of art, see how it’s displayed in museums and galleries, zoom in close up see details’ (2015.) It’s hard to ignore how easy it is to view art content online, and it’s important to recognise that this enables far more people to engage with it than ever before. The only question Cotters seeks to ask is what we are missing, and in his own conclusions, it’s plainly suggested the physicality or the work and the gallery experience. But this brings us to the idea of art accessibility, a topic that will be discussed in the next section of this essay. The death of art galleries In the UK Art Galleries and Museums are a cultural normality that the public generally expects to be found in most cities. London alone has some of the most expansive collections of art in Europe, with galleries and museums such as the Tate Gallery Group, The National gallery (portrait, and history), the V&A, British museum and many more. However, statistics from The Department of Culture, Media and Sport have recently revealed a continued steady decline in the number of British citizens visiting these Established art galleries. For what reason? One theory from Berger points to the class system and overall pre-conceptions the masses have about the exclusivity of art galleries. ‘ The majority take it as axiomatic that museums are full of holy relics which refer to a mystery that excludes them: the mystery of unaccountable wealth. Or, to put this another way, they believe that original masterpieces belong to a preserve (both materially and spiritually) of the rich.’ John Berger (1972) pg 24. What Berger is suggesting is that the general public just takes it for granted that the experience of a gallery is simply not for them. Galleries and museums have an un-relatable, pretentious image problem that needs to be solved. The kind of art found worthy of a gallery is often defined as high culture. One short way of explaining high culture or ‘real culture’ is given in John Storey’s Cultural Theory and Popular Culture (2008) pg.6, chapter 1. ‘to be real culture, it has to be difficult. Being difficult thus ensures it’s exclusive status as high culture.’ In regards to art this could be the technical accomplishment of a painting or even just the Avant-guard context or idea behind a piece that perhaps would need to be explained by an art critique before it’s apparent. But are these pre-conceived ideas of art galleries outdated, based on what people think they know rather than what’s true? If we look again at Holland Cotter’s article ‘Turning out the digital buzz, for an intimate communion with art’ (2015) he paints a very different picture of what the modern gallery really is, using examples of galleries like New York’s MoMA – a very successful gallery, and their open
approach to new ideas of art viewing. ‘ MoMA is encouraging the picture- taking impulse. The institutions current performance-orientated programming, notably its Bjork retrospective, accommodates digital spectacle that will, in turn, encourage digital consumption.’ H. cotter (2015). Encouraging this sort of open engagement, or interaction can hardly be seen as stuffy or pretentious. More so when combined with Cotters remarks to the setups being ‘unusually well suited to selfies’ (the selfie surely being the adverse of what’s defined as high culture.) Potentially this could be the future of museums and galleries alike, and the key to shattering unfavourable stereotypes. A Prominent factor to take from these observations is that times are changing and gallery’s are indeed adapting to survive, as Cotter summarises ‘accessibility is the first and last word on the lips of museum directors.’(2015) This image of an art gallery clashes with Berger’s view, which is altogether a more sombre experience. Having come to that conclusion, there are discrepancies, and the key word to look at can be found in the title of H. Cotter’s article - ‘Communion’(2015). A word with clear religious connotations, that summons up imagery of large silent churches, quiet sitting and holy gatherings. Whilst Cotters acknowledges the new digital wave, it’s clear that it’s not his idea of what a gallery is or should be. Instead this view actually resides well with the ways Berger describes his gallery experiences ‘The room is like a chapel’ (1972) even, ‘The bogus religiosity’ (1972) pg.23. Berger speaks of the religious connotations of galleries unfavourably, whilst Cotters reveres to it almost nostalgically. This seems unexpected, and quite contradictory. Though Cotter’s views may only come with witnessing first-hand the repercussions of digital overload.
Speaking directly about the internet as a form of digital consumption – there are a lot of places that you can seek out art, and all from the comfort of your own home with very little effort. Just a few popular examples of the moment would be blogs, artist websites and more notably social media such as Instagram, Tumblr and even Facebook. These forms of viewing are all noticeably actions done independently, quite often via smartphone. Apps & websites enable Individuals to create and curate their own mini galleries revolving around their personal interests and experiences, they choose what they want to consume, and what is worth consuming to them. Interestingly, it seems this concept was not born out of nowhere. In a short section of text from Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ (1972) pg.30 he describes exactly this phenomenon of self-curation in a pre-internet era. ‘Adults and children sometimes have boards in their bedrooms or living-rooms on which they pin pieces of paper: letters, snapshots, reproductions of paintings, newspaper cuttings, original drawings, postcards. On each board all the images belong to the same language and all are more or less equal within it, because they have been chosen in a highly personal way to match and express the experiences of the room’s inhabitant. Logically, these boards should replace museums.’ Berger (1972). It seems impossible to not acknowledge the similarities in this description here with apps like Instagram or microblogging platforms such as tumblr. It is precisely what they are used for, and even in the pre-internet era Berger still alludes to this idea of curation rivalling traditional galleries – however farfetched that sounded at the time, are we really so far away from it today? The theory was just lacking the vestal, which now, theoretically, we could call the internet. This example of how reproductions can resonate with an individual, and take on a new meaning, is a theory not dissimilar to Roland Barthes ideas on why it is also necessary to overthrow the idea of a author’s presence (and subsequently then the critique) ‘Once an author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes futile. To give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text… When the author has been found, the text is ‘explained’ – victory to the critic.’ Death of the Author (1968) pg.147 Like Berger, Bathes suggests that this would result in a product free for consumption and
interpretation to the individual, enabling the product to designate more strongly by adapting to fit in with a personal narrative. A radical point also made here by Barthes is that if an author is removed, you’d also remove the need for a critique, because without hook to base a critique – there’s nothing to scrutinise. Looking at this extract Berger could be seen to agree with this point ‘the masses, thanks to reproductions, can now begin to appreciate the art as the cultured minorities once did.’ Ways of seeing (1972) pg.33 The cultured minorities being that of art critiques, or say pretentious individuals who imply they have a greater understanding than anyone else of a piece of art, because without these metaphorical reins, the general public would be able to enjoy and feel free to engage I art much more readily (like they are free to do with a reproduction pinned to their bedroom wall). Both Theorists point to the summary that in order to reach a break through, superiority needs to be overthrown – be that critiques or traditional art galleries.
To expand on Berger’s theory, it is necessary to look to more current writing on the topic - this brings us to S. Hromack’s article ‘Another ‘C’ Word: On Content And The (Techno) Curational’ published in the CCS Bard’s Red Hook Journal (2015) (centre of curational studies and art in contemporary culture). Although Berger’s prognosis of an overthrown art gallery has not yet manifested quite to the full extent, there are indicators of the impacts personal digital curation apparent. Hromack suggests that rather that a total dismantlement of the traditional gallery & their curators there’s now a new kind of balance between the seemingly clashing aspects. A yin and yang situation where each can feed seamlessly into another - ‘Capturing and posting an image on an app isn’t precisely analogous to arranging an object in institutional space, but it is a form of documenting and organizing the visual research that begets exhibitions and programs’ Hromack (2015). This puts forward the notion that because of the outward facing nature of our self-curation, we are in fact, conscious of it or not, influencing the choices and decision making taking place in institutions and galleries alike. Rather than crumbling at their feet, curators are benefiting from the publics impulse. For example, curators may seek out social media for research purposes, then curate a show or exhibition based on this research, which in return people will attend and feed back into social media with countless images taken at the event. The radical proposal that personal art curation (physically and or digitally) could indeed be the path to replacing galleries seems derailed. Art made for the Internet Art
+ ++
Something not yet discussed, or less discussed when using the general term of ‘art’ is what we would refer to as ‘internet art’. Art that was never made with the intention to be exhibited in a gallery - ‘the first definitions of internet art centred on the distinction of what was made specifically for the online environment’ Stallabrass. internet art: the online clash of culture and commerce (2003) pg.10. This would suggest that the sole purpose of the art was to sit within the digital frame. An example of this could be seen here in these two illustrations by Jon Burgerman. These particular two were made in 2014, and are part of a larger project Burgerman started back in 2013. The idea behind it was to draw a different girl every week, but the girls were specifically individuals who had posted photos or ‘selfies’ of themselves on Tumblr. Hence the project title, Drawings of girls on tumblr. Burgerman then posted the drawings back onto the same social media platform drawingsofgirlson.tumblr.com, adding to what Hromack would refer to as the ‘endless circulating stream of images’ Another ‘c’ word: on the content and the (techno) curational (2015). This mode of distributing his work could be interpreted as a direct response to that very concept, the ‘endless circulating’ (2015) The images would feed back into the tumblr cycle of reblogging and likes, giving back to the community the illustrations were born from. The project was expressed by Jon Burgerman as ‘a visual discussion of this cultural trend’ (2013) The cultural trend in question being the impulse to put these self-made images online and on social media to be seen. The drawings are fast and expressive, this could possibly reflect the fast natured consumption of digitised art that Cotters (2015) describes. However similar the two illustrations appear; the difference is that the image on the left is actually a commissioned piece put to use with the message of empowering girls – and it isn’t a one off. This series lead to a number of commissioned pieces and eventually a gallery exhibition at Beach London. But this begs the question, without the online success would this series have ever been held up enough to warrant its own gallery exhibition? This brings us back to Hromack’s point on the two way system, how the digital world and social media may not stand alone against galleries, but instead feed & influence decision making at the top ‘ The social web might not be ‘’curational work’’, but contending with it, whether as a participant, spectator, or mere bystander, is part of the work of
being a curator in 2015.’Hromack (2015). This point being made, there are those who would disagree with the sentiment. Stallabrass would compare placing internet art in a gallery environment to housing animals In a zoo, even going further to say ‘they are even more confined and rigid that that, isolated and deprived of interactivity, they are like the still and lifeless shells of taxidermy’ Stallabrass internet art: the online class of culture and commerce (2015) pg.14. That’s to say if the interactivity really was ever a prominent factor of Burgerman’s illustrations in the first place.
To summarise, it’s imperative to outline the key points to be taken away from this essay. The first discussion to focus on centres around art reproductions. Acknowledging the parallels between Berger’s definitions of reproductions and modern day conveniences such as the internet (which allows us to share/reproduce art at super speed level), We can begin to understand some of the positives impacts they can have on the masses. It’s suggested by Berger that Being able to easily access and own art that was once deemed as unattainable allows us to have a personal relation, an individual can create their own personal experience (whether that be pin boards or a tumblr archive) which in turn has the potentially to result in a deeper resonation. This idea is challenged by ideas from Cotter suggesting (to paraphrase) that an intimate experience with art isn’t one found from a photograph or in front of a screen – but from standing before a piece of artwork in a gallery (2015). He argues that reproductions can only offer a taste of this, which could suggest that they are in fact inferior. Through considering these arguments, a secondary point is brought to light – accessibility. When making this incline Cotter’s uses examples of institutions like MoMA and their tendency to ‘encourage digital consumption’ (2015). The authenticity of a photograph or a digital gallery seems less important when put into the perspective that there’s an audience out there for whom art in the sense of a ‘traditional gallery’ is not accessible, be that perceived or physically. The positives of accessibility in regards to art can hardly be challenged here. However now the reader in faced with another theory, potentially, could the public’s desire to digitally consume and curate online overthrow traditional galleries as we know them? In referral to a physical collection of reproductions and snapshots ‘logically, these boards should replace museums’ Berger (1972) pg30. Supporting evidence of a shared opinion is also given from examples in Roland Barthes ‘Death of the Author’ (1968). This brings the reader to what could be seen as a broaching answer, and a final key point. The counter argument brought forward by Hromack highlights the important interactions that takes place between personal curation and the physical gallery curation, highlighting the crucial cross over. Further evidence for this crossover can be observed through image analysis of examples from Jon Burgerman. Having considered all these various inputs, one can ratify some of the general ideas as followed, it is possible for reproductions to both enhance and limit a person’s connections to art, however the accessibility they provide by opening up what can seem a closed world to some can in circumstances be seen to override the negatives. This prompting an embrace of healthy digital consumption for more traditional galleries can also be seen as positive – In regards to this replacing them as a new art viewing format, evidence does not suggest this. Perhaps the clearest of messages is that In order to enhance art viewing for the masses, there needs to be a balance between the digital and the physical.
Books Berry. D.M, M Dieter, (2015). ‘Postdigital Aesthetics’. 1st ed. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Print. Stallabrass, J, (2003). ‘Internet Art: the online class of commerce’. 1st ed. London: Tate Publishing. Barthes, R. (1968) ‘The Death Of The Author’, Fontana, London Berger, J. (1972) ‘Ways Of Seeing’. Harmondsworth: Penguin Storey, J. (2008) ‘Cultural Theory and Popular Culture’, 5thed, London: Pearson, Chap 1. Online Cotter, H. (2015) “Tuning Out Digital Buzz, For An Intimate Communion With Art”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/arts/artsspecial/tuning-out-digital-buzz-for-anintimate-communion-with-art.html?_r=0 (accessed 22 April 2017) Hudson. M. (2015) “are we falling out of love with art galleries”. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/museums/11424096/Are-we-falling-out-of-love-with-artgalleries.html (accessed 22 April 2017) Hromack, S. (2015) "CCS Bard | Another ‘C’ Word: On Content And The (Techno) Curatorial". Red Hook Journal. http://www.bard.edu/ccs/redhook/another-c-word-on-content-and-the-techno-curatorial/ (accessed 3 April 2017) GOV.UK. (2017) “Museum And Galleries Monthly Visits”. Gov.uk. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/museums-and-galleries-monthly-visits (accessed 22 April 2017)