Recently Arianna Huffinton wrote a piece for the Huffington Post's arts section that largely served to criticize museums' use of the internet as a tool for disseminating art. [Click this link to read her op-ed.] She suggested that when people look at works of art online, versus having the traditional art viewing experience at a museum, they are robbed of the opportunity to understand the art at a level deeper than its aesthetic worth.
While I understand where Huffington is coming from, I think she fails to recognize that while the internet, and social media technologies specifically, can strip art of its depth, (a point well proven by her example of the possibility of pressing a button that says “like” or “dislike” about a piece of art without an explanation or discussion,) the internet's dissemination of images of art does provide people who wouldn’t ordinarily go to museums with the opportunity to see art (and hopefully think about it on their own, even if they don't discuss it publicly). And who knows, perhaps such experiences do in fact draw people into museums, though if nothing else, I would claim that viewing art online is better than not at all.
On a side note, Huffington's point is apt for many industries, (not just art,) media being the most detrimentally affected victim. What I mean is that on the one hand technology is great for the media industry in that it has enabled unprecedented numbers of people to know what's happening in the world - for example many people who might not read the newspaper, still see news headlines on their AOL newsfeed. The down side of this is that there isn’t always “important” news to be disseminated, so the constant news-casting that is a product of the plethora of available technologies, has caused the most mind numbing things to be broadcasted in "dull" moments, for example how much money Bernie Madoff’s underpants sold for at auction.
So, perhaps a way to reconcile both of these matters is to invest in more photo journal type columns. (Yes, yes, you are right there's always an agenda at hand.) For example, from time to time there is a photo journal in the New York Times. Such pieces always catch my eye, perhaps because they are out of the ordinary, but more likely because I, like many people am drawn to visual stimulants. Seeing a big picture in the Times, or many pictures as is the case with a photo journal, sparks my curiosity about the topic at hand. Thus, photo journals are a way to spread art (in a context that necessitates, or at the very least is conducive to, explanation), while also disseminating meaningful news, (at least I hope since it certainly would not be interesting to see photos of each of Bernie Madoff's pairs of panties).
On that note, below is my very own photo journal that documents the view from the balcony of the villa my family stayed in in St. Maarten in late December. Though lacking in any artistic edge or important current world news, it does captures the importance of leisure time, so I hope you will enjoy! (Although, come to think of it, I could go ahead and make a pitch for some environmental cause, since you gotta admit this is downright gorgeous and certainly worth preserving for future generations to witness if nothing else!)
No comments:
Post a Comment