The answer to the question, “What is art?” will no longer be “That which is in museums and galleries”, but, “That which looks good on the internet.”
I’m not so concerned about the accuracy of the prediction; I find it a reasonable bet. What bothers me is the extent to which the digitalized image separates us from the essential physical character of the artwork.
In creating an artwork, especially from imagination, the nature of the materials influences the process. The subtle traces of this which remain can be some of the most powerful aspects of the physical work itself. And yet these are easily lost in the digital reproduction. A striking example I have seen of this is in Michelangelo’s drawings. The drawings which I studied in the recent exhibition in Haarlem have great power, but this is mostly lost in the internet reproductions.
The Sistine Chapel ceiling does as poorly on the internet as the study drawings, but for a different reason; the awesome, encompassing quality of the work is lost when it is reduced to a miniature flat image on the computer monitor.
If this can happen to Michelangelo, what are the implications for artists today who wish to use the web as their exhibition space? Will the medium distort and degrade the artist’s methods as he or she attempts to create “That which looks good on the internet”?
_________
Related:
Fall of the Art World
irony often translates poorly.
It is interesting to compare translating language and translating an image onto the internet. Irony often translates poorly, as you point out. Translating one language into another is an art form in itself. I suppose the lesson is, if the internet becomes a necessary medium, the artist must make a special effort at this form of translation, from physical work to digital image. Perhaps making close up details, views with raking light, even stereo images will help.
On reader emailed me about the potential to manipulate images at the digital level. This is another thing to think about; should we think of the original artwork, or as the digital image — however manipulated — as the final work?
Clearly, the internet presents its own set of problems, as does the art world of the dealers and curators. It seems that the only hope for the artist is to keep a clear sense of the aesthetic goal and try to make the most of the mode of presentation, without being deflected from his or her purpose.
Karl,
Thanks for the link….I believe you have answered the question of why galleries must exist even with the internet proliferating to the art world….sometimes you just need to see an image in person!
Hi Jordan,
I think it is good to separate “the art world” as a concept from the physical spaces of the galleries and museums. What I suggested is that the internet will change ability of those who control those physical spaces to define art. That is not to say that the spaces themselves will disappear, or cease to have a function — anymore than the physical artwork will disappear.
At Art News Blog today there was an interesting story about a real gallery expanding onto the internet as an “open gallery”. I find this related to our discussion here. This is a curious phenomenon. Are we seeing the gallery encroaching on the web, or the web encroaching on the gallery? It seems ambiguous. The boundaries become blurred.