Sunday, October 1, 2006
C Culture
I want to address something I see as a cultural problem within the artworld. A problem of rigidity and narrowmindedness from the very group that is supposed to lead culture. The problem is not allowing artistic content to freely exist on the internet, either ones own or ones collection. I cannot understand why artists, Museums, (and many corperations) are so against this free and effective advertising!? For instance, Saturday Night Live sued YouTube for broadcasting snips of their program. (These free clips were generating a huge increase in ratings for SNL). Most companies would kill for this kind of success, often referred to as “viral marketing.” And in fact, SNL has since recanted, and is now trying to get this stuff back up. The cause of this shortsightedness is greed, “we are missing out on some extra dollars if we let it air for free.” The remedy for this problem is a smarter kind of greed, “The more buzz on the internet I can generate, the more this will increase the value of my brand.” Both are greedy (which I have no problem with), but the current attitude of guarding ones content from the internet is just stupid.
In the case of artists, the reason is even more mysterious - because their motivation isn’t to get rich, but to be seen and heard. And like corperations, an artist only benefits from wider attention. This is why I was stunned speechless to hear Mr. Pfeiffer talk emphatically about keeping his videos off YouTube! He is not alone, I have talked with countless artists that want to tightly control when and how their artwork is reproduced. Stupid. 99% of art has a material dimension, which is it’s reality. Paintings, sculpture, video, etc., all have size, context, physicality that is part of an experience. A small little jpeg or 30sec compressed video is in no danger of replacing the real thing! No one is going to take the 72 pixel version of a VanGogh and put the MOMA out of business - but that is what they fear. It’s time the artworld stop embarrassing itself with such ancient attitudes, and allow itself to flourish in the public eye. We never stop hearing about institutions wanting to be more appealing to the general public, and then they take themselves off the internet?! I realize that some old copyright laws still give foundations the right to sue, if you reproduce a Warhol without permission for instance (ironic). But these protection laws were written before the internet, and no longer make sense. These laws were meant to protect owners, but now these laws are hurting owners by keeping their content from ever flourishing in the public eye. Business and marketing are coming around to this notion much faster than the artworld, which is ashame. The artworld doesn’t even seem to be aware how far it is behind.
I’m out of breath… more on this later.
posted by cjagers at 07:14pm
8 Comments Add your own
1. Lisa Hunter | October 2nd, 2006 at 11:53 pm
What’s tricky is that so much art today is created electronically, and could be easily reproduced. At the same time, collectors want one of a kind pieces or limited editions. Artists who make paintings or sculptures may feel freer to post images than, say, a video artist.
2. chris | October 3rd, 2006 at 3:53 am
Thanks for your input Lisa. I understand, but I think that is part of the digitial territory. Choosing any medium comes with certain downsides. (Sculptors must deal with unbelievable storage problems for instance). And I think video artists must accept that they have choosen a medium that is easy to reproduce, and embrace it rather than fight it. Further, usually the installation of a video piece is very important. Often the showing of a video will have very specific parameters which are important to the piece.
Perhaps there is a different business model for video art? The whole earthwork movement was interesting, in part, because it showed that the market can accomodate anything. Trying to keep stuff of the net is just a lack of imagination, in my humble opinion.
3. Harold Hollingsworth | October 6th, 2006 at 2:31 am
I agree Chris, it was one of the nice things about being in tullycraft, we would send mp3’s out like manna from heaven to generate interest. It works, and I believe the same should hold true for art. Like water flowing through a valley, the erosion will occur, whether artists like it or not.
4. Christopher Jagers »&hellip | January 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
[…] MOMA now has a YouTube channel. I got excited when I first read this on Tylers’s blog, but I was naive. They only have two videos, and nothing from their own collection. No plans to post their collection either. Their videos are too good for that. I have previously posted about my frustration with the artworld falling so far behind contemporary culture. Why do so many refuse to make their content available online, why? To keep it safe from the internets? I’m curious to hear your theories. […]
5. greg.org | January 9th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
i’ve been interested in this aspect of video-based art for a long time, both as an observer and a collector. We have 14 television monitors in storage, all bought to meet the artists’ specific instructions for various pieces. Annoying? a bit, but no more annoying than storing a sculpture. Part of being a caretaker of work like this is respecting the artist’s own decisions for how a work is shown/experienced.
Are some artists a little fearful or control freaky about their work? Absolutely, but maybe that’s part of their makeup, their practice, or their conceptual framework. So be it, frankly. A selfless, generous soul would NOT have gotten The Cremaster Cycle made in the first place.
Museums are conservative by definition/mission, and beholden to artists’ instructions for their works. For an artist who’s seeking to sample, reference, or rework video art, all this means is it takes a bit of effort to secure bootleg copies of whatever you want.
6. Jason | January 9th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Didn’t Benjamin start this conversation 70 years ago? I only have a couple non-linear thoughts 1) The only things that adhere to logic less than artists are large boards 2) Artists must learn that while they can control how their work is shown, they can never control how it is experienced 3) Anyone who gets into video art for the money has already established themselves as irrational 4) Anyone who would rip a piece of art off, was not a prospective buyer anyway
7. Bry | January 16th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Firstly thanks so much for this, I’m in the middle of writing my dissertation on the display of video art outside the gallery so naturally youtube has played a big part.
I think the main issue is an artist want to be credited for their work, and allthough sight like youtube and google video try to follow copyright rules, with so many videos being uploaded they can’t possibly do it well. I’ve seen far too many ‘filmed in a gallery’ videos without any credit to the artist for my liking, it’s a matter of respect. And as you say, yes it is good publicity to have your work shown all over, an in fact it’s a major point of a lot of video artists work to be as accessible as possible but if the name isnt with the work then where is the gain for the artist? I think artists will (rightly) wait until there can be some real copyright enforcement policies until they start to take advantage of the internet as a medium and until then we’ll all just have to get out from behind the computer screen and go to the damn gallery won’t we.
8. ArtTube: High and Lowbrow&hellip | April 25th, 2007 at 2:41 am
[…] Article on the lack of internet video art due to ‘reproduction’…the article has some great replies to it also! : http://chrisjagers.net/wp/?p=393 […]
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed