Reading Due for Tuesday, July 10th! (Extra credit for blogging)
Reading Due:
We will also be doing Presentations.
If you would like some extra credit, please consider the following questions and respond:
Thinking back on all that we’ve talked about so far, as well as the reading assignment for this week, explain your position on art in cyberspace.
While doing so, think about some of the questions below . . . to help you form a thoughtful response.
Is cyberspace art even art? Why or why not?
How would you determine what is “good/bad” art in cyberspace? Should there be a certain set of criteria for what is called art online; and if so, what should that be?
What do you think is the purpose of art? Must art carry a message? Or must it be aesthetically pleasing? And if so, does art do this in cyberspace? How effectively?
How do you view the relationship between art and its audience? Does art have a greater responsibility to its audience than the audience to art? And how might art in cyberspace either weaken or strengthen your views on the way art and audience interact?
When comparing cyberspace art to “real life” art, what might be some of the benefits of art in cyberspace? What might be some of the drawbacks?
What expectations do you have when going to see a play, movie, art gallery exhibit (to be informed? entertained? to engage in a personal experience? etc.). How does your typical experience with or of art coincide (or not) with your experiences of it in cyberspace?
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
3 responses so far ↓
1
Laura
// Jul 9, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Selling my art in cyberspace seems like something I will never do. Mostly because I don’t really like that everything is evolving around the internet these days. I feel like I’m losing contact with people because the only way I can talk to them is through email. Soon we might never leave our house, because we can talk, order food, take a class, and sell our product over the internet. I am not a fan on the cyber world and the “art gallery” showings that you can go to online but I do see some benefits to this new artistic category.
There is this whole new market for art and artists, a place where you can sell you and your work and show people what your life is like. This wasn’t the case before, artists would work really hard and there was a good chance that no one would ever see your work. Now that the internet is a part of our world you can be the “worst” artist in the world but you can display your stuff on the net and someone will most likely see it. This seems a benefit to me because it promotes more people to be artistic, granted to me figuring out how to put your art on the net is art in itself. There is so much work out there, so many mediums that you can choose from. It even exposes us to art in completely different parts of the world, that we may have never seen before. There is so much creativity and this is wonderful and its good to have because it opens up minds which to me is a plus.
The other benefit has to do with the fact that the cyber art world helps people with disabilities of all kinds. There may be a painter who is handicapped in some way and can’t really get the art out to the world and the internet is a great help. It gives people a chance who may never have had that opportunity before. I have a friend who has some mental issues and he is a photographer. He doesn’t really like to go out and he hates meeting new people, for the longest time the only people who ever saw his wonderful work were his few friends and his family. Now that he has an online website more people have seen his work and he has had such good feedback that he told me that he “feels less anonymous”. This cyber world is such a help for people who maybe never really thought that their art was important or something that they could do. It is beneficial to those artist and to the viewers that get to experience the work of artists who never thought they were and art that almost never was. I’m still not going to live my life on the internet but I like this new idea that the internet is just a big gallery and we are all just the art in its walls.
2
Gabriel
// Jul 9, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Kenneth Baker made a good point about our sensitivity to images increasing as the internet and more visual media as consumed our culture. I think that visual entertainment is going to continue to increase since the internet is becoming more predominant in out school systems. A good example of that is our class. Another that observation which I have noticed, which was also mentioned in Bakers article is how chat rooms have evolved into what is now second life with avatars, which are visual depictions of ourselves. I think it’s nice that images are being integrated more into the internet and other media because they make things more appealing and relatable with us on more than one level.
About selling art in cyberspace I can’t really get into it too much. I find that at least for visual art alot of looses its authenticity. It just does’nt seem as real of original, and many could have copies of the same thing but how can someone have unique art if a million others have a copy. With music on the other hand its a differant story. In ways I think that the internet is a great way of exposing bands, and getting music out there. But like Lars Alrich of Metallica I feel like a lot of bands loose money and get ripped off by the internet, so I have mixed feelings. If you smart about it the internet can be a great networking tool, but it also can be a factor in getting sold short.
3
Carolyn
// Jul 10, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I nearly laughed out loud as Michael Goldhaber states, “it usually helps when the artist is dead,” referring the the pricing of artwork. The point is valid, as there will be no continued work produced from a singular person given that they’re deceased, creating an authentication. However, I also take into account that this article, which was written in 1998, may already be outdated or deceased itself in terms of cyberspace artwork. In 1998, the thought of buying anything off of the internet was still scarry for many, let alone artwork. And still today, although the internet may be an instrument used to further expose and network images, as proposed by Kenneth Baker, most (including myself) find something like buying artwork one of those very intimate and self gratifying experiences to be done in real life.
That said, I think that the largest hang up for internet imagery is the fact that there is a huge difference between seeing art in person versus online. Unless it is the intent of a particular artist to market their artwork exclusively for online viewers, I don’t believe that online viewing is nearly as impactful. And even the thought of targeting artwork exclusively for the internet would have to be a fairly newer concept, at least outdating 1998, as “second-life” wasn’t even created yet.
I agree with potential new artist exposure, but not necessarily with the purchase and reproduction of the art.
Leave a Comment