How Has Art Adapted Amidst Covid?

HowHow HasHas ArtArt AdaptedAdapted AmidstAmidst Covid?Covid? Alysha Wong, Year 13, Keller House

Art is an integral part of society, acting as a means of global communication, a record of human history and a device that elicits important conversations necessary in creating a utopia.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, artists and museum curators have needed to reevaluate their previous procedures of displaying artwork. What once was suspended on the cream walls and framed by gold in Tate Britain is now a photograph with its potential to evoke, to comfort, to disturb restricted by 2dimensional screens. Undoubtedly, this has taken a toll on both ends: the artist and the viewer. However, it may be far too reductive just to look at the confining limits of online exhibitions; it is equally important to reflect on the possibilities of displaying art in online environments.

Despite being seen as a hassle or a missed chance of remuneration, other institutions have capitalized on this shift, taking steps to advance engagement levels with their viewers. It is helpful to note that online exhibitions are not limited to the museum’s website. Some museums have chosen to release interactive material on social media platforms. This approach has overt benefits to institutions: by tracking online viewers’ activity (eg. the number of visits and duration spent on each artwork), quantitative data is easily generated which enables these institutions to understand and analyse their museum ethnography.

The democratising potential of art on social media platforms is among the most gratifying pros to the approach; art now has the utmost potential to reach the masses, perhaps including once marginalised audiences. This also poses a solution to the gentrification of art, removing it from its bourgeois, conservative roots into a new point in time where nongrammatic expression, rather than privilege and indulgence, serves as the nexus of art. For instance, the V&A museum in London is home to the world’s oldest dated carpet: the Ardabil Carpet. Having survived an earthquake in the shrine of Shaykh Safi al-Din and multiple transactions from Iran to Manchester. It is currently stored in the V&A where it was previously lit up for display during a brief window of 10 minutes every 1.5 hours to preserve its rich colours and complex textures. The incorporation of the carpet in the museum’s online collection, owing to the pandemic, instantiates more sanguine aspects of displaying artwork online. A recent survey by the Pew’s Research Centre’s Internet & American Life Project further demonstrates this cause and effect, where 92% agree with the statement “the internet has increased engagement in the arts by providing a public platform. ” If an online collection has more reach than its physical form, whilst being able to keep the artefacts in perfect condition, are we witnessing the beginning of a new era of art-displaying, where we find more and more artwork exhibited online?

Nevertheless, the viewer experience of art online is incomparable with that of art in a physical exhibition, where one would immerse themselves not only in the work behind the frames or glass panels, but momentarily into the depths of human history and culture. When finely-glazed porcelain plates or 6-foot-tall sculptures are photographed and presented on computer screens, they lose their impact. Instead of pausing, contemplating and allowing ourselves to be engrossed in the artwork, we tend to scroll, click, and swipe quicker online. As technology develops, we are increasingly accustomed to instant gratification. In a 2004 study by Stephen M. Nowlis on the Effect of a Delay Between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment, he observed that when people are waiting for something they like, their delay in gratification increases their subjective enjoyment. Similarly, it can be argued that the speed and frequency of pop-up ads in which the Internet endorses harms the

viewer experience of online art. This prompts the questions: is art more spontaneous or are its effects comparable to that of a slow-burn film: a methodical, hypnotic experience that leaves the viewer lingering with afterthought? If a technologydriven future is promised, and displaying art online becomes the default, what would we expect of art in the future?

Taking the Museum of Ice Cream in San Francisco as a case study to demonstrate the link between social media and art, we can gain a better sense of how art is being consumed in the 21st century. The museum is one of the many pop-up “selfie museums” that have gained extreme popularity, with 40-dollar tickets selling out months in advance. The shift in the definition of “museum” , from a building where collections of valuable artefacts are made accessible to the public, to large ball pits with colourful walls and mirrors begs the question: how does social media change the art we consume and create?

Naturally, traditional museums are adding more elements that these “selfie museums” have, in hopes of attracting more visitor interactivity. In the last 5 years, museums have changed from banning photography to encouraging it. The Renwick Gallery put up “Photography Encouraged” signs in 2015, drawing more visitors in 6 weeks than in the previous year. It is undeniable that this new approach to viewing art has attracted a new crowd of visitors who may not fit into the target market. Banksy, one of the first artists who rose to fame after going ‘viral’ on social media, did not aim to attract the stereotypical investors of art: older appreciators who are willing to pay fortunes for a symbol of status to flaunt. Instead, counterculture groups resonated heavily with his message. It’s very likely that Banksy’s story would have been completely different if it happened even a decade earlier, without social media being a ubiquitous influence in our lives.

Nevertheless, with this level of social media sharing comes a lack of quality control. When colourful, simple, large-scale installations fill the space of the many museums, less and less of its resources will fund more subtle, complex, detail-oriented artwork. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the latter are all traits desired by art critics. Whilst we can appreciate the motifs and simplicity of these artworks, we must start to question their appeal when they lack vital qualities and cease to bring anything new to the table. To narrow this down further, we can look at Instagram as an example of the problematic aspects of sharing art by analysing their infamous algorithm in relation to trends. The way it personalises feeds with media perceived to be of interest or popular is reductionistic of human behaviour and can even be counterproductive to art appreciation. Our tastes for art should not be homogenised into a formula that feeds us back to similar posts; rather, it should be expanded and experimented with. This can be done through reading a diverse range of critics, articles, and magazines, or simply through avoiding art on Instagram’s explore page. When formulas decide what shows up on most viewers’ screens, there are dangerous implications. Evidently, the outbreak of COVID has brought huge repercussions for artists and art consumers. This period of irregularity sparks conversations about the future of art as we advance into a technology-driven future. Whether the rebound is one that expands the demographics of art and pushes the limits of immersivity, or one that transforms the pre-existing notions of “good art” , bringing us new qualities that we judge artwork by, we can only guarantee that like everything else, art is ever-changing.