Art culture around the world seems to be changing rapidly along with the expansion or the internet. Now more than ever, national and even global exchanges can be made by anyone with internet connection. This allows anyone to buy and sell goods via the internet. Before this, it would take exorbitant amounts of money to get started as an artist and then to even sell your works by renting gallery space. Now smaller artists are able to make a name for themselves on a more even playing field.
By selling art on the internet, some may argue that this waters down the value of art. But the huge presence of fine art on websites like ebay, etsy, amazon, Sotheby’s, and even Costco.com can testify to the quality of work being sold. This puts pieces like Norman Rockwell’s “Willie Gillis: Package From Home” within arms reach of anyone with internet connection, that is if you have a spare $4.8 million laying around. Still, it will be interesting to see if this trend can sustain itself, and if the public will start buying in.
This change also impacts the smaller, lesser known artists. One amazing thing about this new market is that it allows an artist who paints in her small studio apartment in Brooklyn to sell her works on the same platform as art culture giants like Warhol or Rockwell. Buying a domain name, maintaining a paypal account, and selling work online allows artists to spare themselves from expensive gallery costs- from rental to advertisements and alcohol.
The accessibility of selling art on the internet also allows for a wider market. Although Amazon doesn’t disclose their numbers, it will be interesting to see if this mode of selling art will change the marketplace. While, I’m sure we will continue to see independently run studios in pop up spaces, the ease of online galleries will surely change the number of them. After all, selling art online reduces cost and increases the chance of selling pieces with a literal world wide market. And while I’m sure hipsters will still enjoy sipping on free booze in a LES gallery, discussing pieces that they probably wont buy, gallery culture is sure the be reduced to a rarity.
You can access the original article here.
Work Cited:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/10/01/amazon-creating-70000-full-time-seasonal-jobs-in-t/
I believe that art should be on a level playing field and nothing helps promote that more then online art markets. Previously, one would either have to have a large amount of money or connections with influential people in the art community to have the opportunity to have their work displayed. Now artists only need online access for the chance to sell to an international audience. Online art markets don’t just benefit artists, it also benefits buyers. Who are we to tell buyers whether a piece of art is worth their money? Why must they only choose from well-known names and “worthy” pieces? Art is open to interpretation and worth by the individual and what better way to choose a perfect fit than through a wide market?
In addition, to your comment on the watered-down quality of work sold online; artnet sells works that go upwards of thousands, even hundreds of thousands and their business is booming. Their online auction sales have generated more than 12 million in sales. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/arts/design/artnet-has-online-art-sales-success.html?pagewanted=all
I think that displaying art galleries on the internet is a great threat to showcasing galleries in actual events. Many people see internet as a whole new way of communication and displaying information, so I am not surprised that this is happening. Even art museums such as the Delaware Art Museum is working on making all of their art accessible online. The museum’s art will be able to be seen by the millions of people who go on the web everyday. Art in museums and galleries will find a place on the internet. The only thing I think these art collections on the web cannot replace is the social aspects of an actual gallery showcase. Sure hipsters love them and get drunk, but I am sure that the art community holds them dear to their heart. It is one of their few ways to bring artists together and help their peers succeed. http://www.afanews.com/home/item/2104-delaware-art-museum-receives-grant-for-online-collection#.UlNFsmRxsVk
It really is true, you can find just about anything online. To me, this poses a huge problem. I think the fact that a small artist can jump into the market so easily allows for easy corruption. What I mean by this is that a piece by Warhol can be on the same website as so many new artists works, thus demeaning the priceless Warhol. If I see a timeless piece among hundreds of other everyday pieces, the value of it in my eyes is weakened. Why should one be able to be on the same site as an established artist that is known world wide?
In addition, I like the idea of a free market, and having the ability to start a business and have opportunities for success. E-commerce is taking over. It is a great way to market and sell products. It has definitely made an impact on the amount of people who visit the story. Many choose to look for the item online these days as opposed to traveling to the story and shopping there. Who wouldn’t?
The problem I have with E-commerce the fact that there are so many ways to fool someone. On ebay, there are many unethical sellers. They deceive you and get away with it. Many of them sell a much cheaper product that ends up breaking after a short time, but since they do not accept returns, one cannot really do much about it. Additionally one identity and credit card information can be easily solicited if one is not carful with the “Security policies”. These are just some of the many reasons that one must be very careful with buying things online.
http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/how-to-shop-online-safely-make-payments-safeguard-identity/1/194372.html
I am very supportive of art going rogue and joining the internet world during times where it is so expensive to go the gallery route. I think it will help many artists to grow and become more apart of the art world. Instead of having to constantly worry about making money and living from their art, the internet allows artists to continuously create; consequently, if the artist needed to paint for a gallery and had to wait until it was up for show than they would need to pursue some other job that they may hate and that would further stop them from drawing. I think it isn’t going to change the gallery world because it allows a persons name to be even further known and the art gallery can show others that they have really gained a position in the art world. I think it’s the same thing that is happening in Berlin right now where musicians are moving there because there is a new and more enjoyable air around the city. Many musicians are collaborating and creating at Berlin where music is free to change, be different, and evolve. As quoted from the article by Alisa Weilerstein “Berlin is what New York was 30 years ago” even if this is true New York is still a place where music flourishes but now there is another place where more music can flourish. This is the same for the art because instead of just having hundreds of artists because of galleries, there are millions of artists because of the internet.
I really liked your last sentence about hipsters in a LES gallery! I think expanding the selling of art to the internet makes it more accessible to the public. The art world should 100% continue to expand as technology advances. This idea reminded me of an article I read in AP French last year that spoke about an artist who couldn’t afford to travel to the places he wanted to paint. He decided to use the internet to his advantage – he would go onto Google Maps’ Street View option and search the address of the place he wanted to paint. He would paint the photographs he saw and sell them. I find this idea extremely innovating. Why not use the internet if it benefits you?! I think selling art online would definitely broaden the number of art buyers and would generally ameliorate the art world.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212494/Vincent-Van-Google-Artist-uses-Street-View-website-travel-world-virtually.html
I think that selling art online is extremely important for the future success of art. In the age of the internet, anyone can anywhere can interact with people in ways never before possible. As you said, this presents a huge opportunity for lesser known artists to make a name for themselves. That said, even more established artists can benefit from this shift as well. As you can see in this NY times article from 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/arts/design/artnet-has-online-art-sales-success.html?pagewanted=all), there are now many websites being created in order to facilitate this new online auction movement. I am very happy to see that artists for the most part have been embracing the 21st century, rather than avoiding it.
I agree that with today’s advanced technology, it is becoming easier and easier for artists to get started and display their artwork. I was surprised to find out how many websites sell artwork. I think it’s hard to follow a set of guidelines for what can or cannot be considered art because each website probably has a different value of art.
I like that artists all over the world are getting a chance to express themselves by using affordable and accessible sources, such as the internet. However, the fact that less known artists can sell their works “on the same platform as art culture giants” is a bit unfair considering the more famous artists had to work their way up to get there. I still think art galleries allow for a more personal connection with artworks, but the Internet provides a wider audience, which all artists are looking for.
Today, artists have so many options of displaying their work. I found an interesting article about artist, Sir Peter Blake, who displayed his piece on an advertisement billboard for an unlimited audience. In the UK, artwork is now being displayed on billboards, bus stops, major roads, train stations, shopping malls, etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/08/art-everywhere-project-streets-london
Honestly, I don’t think it matters how you buy the art. Just last week I saw a great painting online, read about it, checked out the close ups, price tag, and closed the site. In a gallery, if you wanted to find out all of this information, the artist or whoever is selling the painting would probably want you to buy it and that would lead to an awkward conversation as to why you cannot buy that painting today. I am a huge supporter of online stores and think that this way of selling art would actually allow the poorer artists to display their work without shelling out a bundle of cash. However, I can see why people would be upset, as an article in the Economist states, “Amazon is not in the business of managing artists’ careers. You can buy a Jeff Koons print on the site for $33,750 but are unlikely to find his giant steel “Tulips” (a version of which fetched nearly $34m). Mr Almgren thinks Amazon will struggle to sell even more modest works.” As you can see, not everyone is onboard with this and it does raise an interesting point – how would you sell the masterpieces and how to tell them apart from the knockoffs.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21586588-internet-giants-fine-art-venture-unlikely-sell-many-masterpieces-enter-amazon
Internet has become a location for mass communication, and I agree that it’s awesome how lesser known artists can be exposed to a wider audience as a result. Not even just for artists who can’t afford gallery space, but for people who just like to draw and want to make a few bucks. It’s easy to advertise your art on places like etsy, but it’s also easy to do art commissions through social networks. By simply sharing your art on places like deviantArt, you come across people who want to purchase your art even though there was never the intention to sell in the first place.
Although I don’t think casual art exchange will effect those who pursue art as a livelihood, I do think it will change the dynamic of the art flow.