NOVEMBER 17 & 24
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
How do you imagine the future of art and culture in society?
How might transmedia experience/materials shape the future?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Module 4: The Future
NOVEMBER 17 & 24
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
How do you imagine the future of art and culture in society?
How might transmedia experience/materials shape the future?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
There are so many angles from which to predict the future of arts and culture in our society, and the assigned readings, blogs, and media for Module 4’s question engage with a number of them.
What stands out most prominently for me are the intersections or points of convergence of a) open source/creative commons (Wikipedia entry on open source, Lewis Hyde’s notes on his new book about Cultural Commons), b) the way in which information is exchanged (and knowledge produced and memory/learning affected – Publico’s 2010 question) via the web and other transmedia (everything), and c) the weakening of high art or professional arts in the wake of the “Pro-Am” movement and other such characterizations of future creative output or the “creative class” and its accompanying politics (Ivey and Tepper – “Cultural Renaissance or Cultural Divide?”).
The internet is both the primary cause or source as well as the platform for all of the above. When my group made a presentation to the class during Module 2 about cultural democracy and civic ecology, Doug brought up an important question regarding the utopic view of the internet affording nearly universal “access” to information (and the ways in which this benefited knowledge acquisition, education, future opportunity, and access to resources) and the ramifications for the internet being bogged down by corporate monopoly, advertising, and for-profit motives (as discussed by Ivey and Tepper).
It is truly fascinating to think how ease of access to culture and its conversations (and the ability to contribute to them) have been facilitated by the internet, while all the while the internet as platform for such engagement is far from immune to corporate interest/influence and governmental control of the public. Then again, I think here of our discussions of an emerging “fourth sector” that exists outside the nonprofit/for-profit/public sector (and its hybrids), and how that fourth sector is manifesting from individuals’ and communities’ desires to build and participate in projects or initiatives that are even further independent of the control of bodies of power than are traditional nonprofits. Can we really call the nonprofit sector “independent” when governmental regulations regarding its functions and operations are so stringent?
Will the fourth sector be internet-driven? Will it instead be shaped, in large part, by a fear of corrupt influence behind the internet with the surge of interest in and support for DIY culture (not a new thing, relatively speaking, but definitely experiencing a renaissance of sorts right now) and take culture in altogether new, and newly imagined hybrid, directions, directed by communities themselves? Are communities the future of arts and culture (as the internet has predicted), whereby small subsets of populations collaborate to develop projects of mutual interest, aesthetic, and history?
Will the future of arts and culture be more singular, or plural? Will there be ANY room for dualities or dichotomies of this sort at all? I think of entire identity groups and positions and movements finding their voices via the internet, and then I imagine how far-reaching, given the constraints, pre-internet efforts to create such communities truly were . . . zines, for example. Across oceans, people collaborated or participated in subcultural or counter-cultural efforts and experiences through niche interests, somehow finding each other through unique and creative channels of distribution. The internet is not unique, nor has it ever been its own thing. It seems sometimes like a mimicry or parody of what we are capable of on our own. At the same time, can we continue to use it to leverage such possibilities that lie within us as people-based communities?
If nothing is original, and the internet is (or rather, strives to be) a source, a location, a home for everything and everyone (despite corporate greed, privileged access, and invasion of privacy), then it is perhaps the least original of anything we might imagine (if we consider the Jarmusch quote, which quotes Godard, posted on the Module 4 webpage). Perhaps we can first acknowledge and then harness this lack of originality for the benefit of arts and culture, continuing to discuss and refine the ways in which the internet and the digital components of transmedia do in fact help us learn, share, and engage productively (and consequently work to improve access for all to those means and modes of media in the interest of cultural democracy), and on the other hand, recognize the ways in which the internet, digital media, and technology can be limiting, insulating, obfuscating, obscuring, or scarring (the violence of technology cannot be ignored) and we can thus intellectually and practically acknowledge the importance of tangible, analog, felt interactions and experiences and endeavor to develop arts and culture programming that strikes a balance between the two.
I think this directly engages with Kelly Tavares’ crucial question about and reminder of lack of access to or chosen abstinence from technology, and the inherent benefits and disadvantages to both access and the lack of it. The future of arts and culture is probably best served by making decisions that are always informed by the positive and negative aspects of both digital and web-based as well as analog and concretized personal/communal transmedia.
The great thing about transmedia is that it isn’t limited by either. Both (and all) further open up transmedia’s infinite possibilities.
I first want to mention that the Ivey-Tepper reading, “Cultural Renaissance or Cultural Divide,” really speaks to me and my field guide for Art and Society. The section discussing the rise of amateur art making due to access to inexpensive methods of creating, recording, and distributing art is exactly what I am interested in helping musicians explore.
With that said, I imagine the future of art and culture pushing ahead in the direction it seems to be moving. Access to technologies is only going to become easier as more people become involved in the creation of software and arts. The physical world of technologies (microphones, computers, cameras, etc) will continue to develop as long as consumers are willing to pay for them and with stronger technology to fuel the home based artist. With a wider array of art being produced, we will continue to find artists exploring new realms without the pressures of the corporate world preventing them from being creative. Musicians, for example, are free to record their own versions of popular music (see this version of Gaga’s Poker Face for example)
I hope that as transmedia materials develop, more artists begin looking at the concept of remixing art forms as having a positive benefit for their art. I believe artists deserve recognition for their creations but also believe that the adaptation of pre-existing work to create new art is a way to tell other artists that their art has inspired others to create. Ultimately, in a world where art is important, the goal is to have people create art. As simply as I can put it, the goal of artists is to create. To create, they need inspiration. If one artist’s work inspires another artist, than art perpetuates itself and becomes, in a sense, sustainable.
One additional note, I just saw “The Social Network” and would like to point out the parallel themes between the movie and our class. The big theme is intelligent property or who “owns” ideas. With the internet (and in this case Facebook), it is easy to take one idea and run with it in a similar but different direction. Who really owns the final product? How do we protect ourselves from becoming the victim of an intelligent property suit when so many ideas are floating around in cyber space? Next, I couldn’t help but notice all of the re-made songs in the soundtrack. The one that caught my attention the most was “In the Hall of the Mountain King” by Edvard Grieg. One of the video clips associate with this module’s question contains a comment about how we can re-use all of the classical music we want because dead guys are not going to sue us. Here is a great example of a tune that is found being used by many musicians in many different ways. Does anybody question whether or not Apocalyptica paid for the rights to perform the tune (View it here), if TechnoHeroine paid to use it a remix, or if Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross paid for it’s use in “The Social Network”
When talk about the future, we should definitely think about the history and the present. In the early 20 century, professional artist making the art for us. They perform on the stage, making the movie for us and creating music to please us. We as the audience just sit there, enjoy the work that created by the artists. Nowadays, most of the time art is created by the artist and audience together. Artist guide the public work together to finish the art piece in the public art realm, common people join the theater participate the show, follow the artist’s step we make the professional photo, etc.
According to the tendency, I imagine that the future of art and culture in society would be everyone participates in the art. The boundary between artists and common people will be indistinct. There will be no amateur or professional at all. Amateur=Professional. In the future, transmedia method will be more advanced and easy to use. “Cheaper technology offers amateurs increasingly powerful tools; the Internet allows them to collaborate globally and train themselves more rapidly.” (Clive Thompson) In the future, the open source will become norm, the copyleft expand. People can share others idea, discuss together and create new work by themselves.
I agree with Roya in that there are a number of ways in which to view the future of art and culture it’s impossible to predict what the next direction will be. Depending on what I read and what I’m feeling on any given day, my response vacillates between a utopic version of the future, one where art is created en masse and there is a new sort of digital renaissance, and a more dystopic version, one where the divide between those who have the technology have the access and those who don’t get left behind.
I’m still very much intrigued by the remix culture and the future of remixes in our society. The readings and the documentaries all come back to the same idea whereby artists are influenced by their surroundings and by the very nature of what art is, use those influences in their work to comment and reflect. In a society where our digital literacy is expanding at a rate that almost seems to exceed its capacity, digital media and digital art naturally become the next wave of art practices. Because of the technology and access the internet provides, the amount of people creating art will increase, making creation of art more accessible to the untrained artist, resulting in a rise of digital folk art. Jordan Roseman, also known as DJ Earwig, speaks to this increase in art production in “Walking on Eggshells” as a positive effect. There will be more people producing art. Much of it will be “bad” art, but by the very fact that so much more is being produced, there will be an increase in “good” art as well. These labels of bad and good are of course somewhat subjective, and the standards for which we judge modern art will have to be redefined in this age of remix culture.
With this increase in digital art and internet access and transmedia technologies, I fear for the state of the traditional art practices like painting, sculpting, weaving, live theater, etc. Not so much in the immediate future, but 100 years from now. 200 years from now. I see an active need to preserve these traditional art forms, and organizations will spring up that maintain a commitment to keeping these practices from becoming lost arts. It’s hard to imagine a world without some of the longest standing forms of self expression, but as technology moves forward, the interest in learning these older methods of creating art could wane, and without an active intent to preserve the techniques and keep young people interested in these forms, there is a risk that some of them could become forgotten over time.
This assumes that everyone on the entire planet will one day have equal access to the most current technology, allowing them the choice of moving forward with technology or maintaining the “old ways” of art production. For many people there is no choice, and for now there is no need to fear the loss of traditional art forms because there are still plenty of artists who were not raised with iPhones in their hands. I fear that playdough and popsicle sticks will fall by the wayside and video games and handheld devices are the wave of the future of kids toys. Now, access is largely based on privilege and financial stability. But with the increase of open source technologies (which I’m a huge proponent of) whereby price becomes less of an issue and access becomes less about who can have the technology and more about who wants the technology, the need for preservation of older forms of art practices becomes more essential.
To close, I have to include a clip that I posted to the diigo site from a Ted Talk featuring Miwa Matreyek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKmZ4f1nAx0&feature=youtu.be&ref=nf). It’s well worth watching, as Matreyek’s work is what I hope to be a taste of what we’re in store for in terms of the future of art. Matreyek combines performance with her own animation and music to create a comprehensive performance art experience that is only possible because of the developments in modern technology. It will be fascinating to see how as technology develops, the different artists who emerge who finally have a medium which speaks to them and allows them to do the work they have the imagination to create. Ultimately, this is the key. As technology advances and opportunities for creation increase, the future of art and culture in our society will be limited only by our imaginations, as the possibilities are increasingly endless.
The future or art and culture depends on several factors: the importance that society give to them; the level of adaptability and development that art and culture may experience; the role of transmediations in the process of reinforcement and diffusion and one of the most important factors in my perspective, education. I consider dividing education in two areas: artistic and cultural. Artistic education includes all kind of learning processes to become educated artists – musicians, painters, dancers- and cultural education shows how daily experiences, traditions, myths, legends, food, clothes, traditionalists stories model ideologically characters and personalities in certain group of people in a particular geographic area.
In the future, both types of education should walk together on the same way, being complement and giving equal importance to each one. Transmedia takes an important role in this scenario, catalyzing spaces of interaction between both types of education and contributing to share knowledge among societies to create suitable cultural and artistic teaching-learning atmospheres. Technology, even being a non approachable resource for everyone, is an important element that we as cultural administrators should utilize. In my opinion, a cultural administrator not only is the one who is capable of managing, organizing or leading, but the one who is aware of maintaining a balance between traditions and modernity. We should keep in mind that technology may modify positively or negatively cultural way of thinking and it is our responsibility to give the appropriate use.
Transmedia and education (artistic and cultural) are the two facts I consider the most relevant to continue with the development of art and culture in society. Teaching and transmedia should be one element, all this to keep alive our desire of being real cultural administrators.
I have posted a video about the Role of Artists in a digital Age, from the 2007 HASTAC conference. Take a look and give your comments!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npG1NiS81zQ
This is the link =)
In our readings, I was particulary intrigued by Ivey and Tepper’s article. I think it’s incredibly important to recognize the impact that technology is having on our art worlds, both as creators and viewers but I also feel that maybe by doing so, we are neglecting to fully awknowledge those who don’t have access to such emerging technologies. As technology continues to develop, will this gap widen? Do we need to make these technologies more accessible so that everyone who wants these opportunities, can have them? I believe we touched base on this subject in our last class but I definitely feel like its important to consider, many many times. With that being said, technology is playing a huge role in arts making for those that have access to it. The accessiblity that resources such as the internet and open sourcing allows is fantastic, especially in means of creating a strong community of artists/participants universally. These communities will be an integral part of the future of arts & culture, as we turn to rely more on individuals with common interests, stories and experiences. Jay brings up an important point – with the rise of so much technology, will the practice of traditional art practices wane? I feel (or at least hope!) that maybe it will become another element and resource in traditional art practices. My only fear is that it won’t be appreciated as much by younger generations who grow up using technology almost constantly.
How do you imagine the future of art and culture in society?
How might transmedia experience/materials shape the future?
Art is unavoidable and creativity is inherent. Traditions and change and the ways we capture our past, present, and visions of the future may take new form, but the practice will likely never cease. Art as an institution will likely not give way to the pro-ams described in the Ivey/Tepper article “Cultural Renaissance or Cultural Divide?”. It will certainly, and already is, need to adapt to the new participatory culture by such pro-ams, by becoming vehicles for participation with programming relevant to their mission.
Art in its many varied forms is our expression, understanding, reflection, digestion, and statement of our world. To leave it to a select few, those given the venerable title “artist” described in the Becker readings for previous modules, is to limit the scope of our cultural experience. Transmedia has allowed for the “thickening” of a movement towards modern folklore replacing the professionalized creative class that dubbed everyone else as “not an artist” by default. The word “replace” in the previous sentence is probably too idealistic.
The omnipresence of media conglomerates raiding our mind space through every media vehicle possible feeds many communities where access to the tools for participation in the emergent participatory culture is limited. They have a fair portion of power in steering our cultural identities, and do so with a very limited scope. Only through redirecting the vision of these powerful companies to incorporate a large number of small audiences can we align these two forces. In that scenario, I would write a more optimistic response.
Perhaps this type of realignment will be the work some of us will do in the years to come. Perhaps the future of art will be one of civic ecology, cultural commons, and rich with shared experiences and new ways of telling our stories to each other. But only if we acknowledge the growth of cultural democracy on the one hand, and the increased cultural deficit on the other, and strive to implement solutions.
The module this week raised a lot of questions about the future. I do not know what the future holds but through analyzing the current trends brought up in the Cultural Renaissance of Cultural Divide? article I can predict certain things about the future of art and culture in society.
My first prediction draws upon Leadbetter’s “Pro-Am Revolution”. These professional amateurs are already starting to take center stage in the entertainment industry. Take for example Justin Bieber’s YouTube fame or American Idol contestants. These artists play music seriously in their free time. They are able to become pro-ams because technology has reduced the high costs of artistic production and met the challenges of finding an audience.
Online outlets such as YouTube, Myspace, and Facebook allow amateur musicians to reach a greater number of people. This exposure creates a new category of experience. Is someone more experienced if they have had specific training in a field or if they became an overnight success with one big hit?
My second prediction is that online mediums will become cluttered. There are so many channels for distribution but without enough viewers for any one distribution source your page or artwork may not be viewed.
One social media example of this that I have noticed already occurring is on Facebook. People are subscribing to pages, groups, events, and liking items out of formality rather than actual interest. This gives a false impression of how many people are being effected by a certain item.
This raises the question, is art dependent of technology? Does technology change art or will traditional art always be the same?
Art forms that were once seen as radical are now thought of as traditional. With this in mind, I believe that art will continue to change and evolve and that a lot of things we would not consider art today may become artwork in the future. With a lower opportunity cost of creating art, more people will be engaged in art activities but the real task will be how to inspire people to be creative with access to so many resources that have been done before. At the end of the day, does technology inspire innovation or does it destroy it?
Technology is ever changing and evolving, while creating new and inventive platforms for art and artistic vision. Through new and emerging technologies, re-imagining of old works becomes an important and essential aspect of our cultural and artistic aesthetic. In the video, “Everything is a Remix,” artistic talent can easily become a showcased globally, but even more importantly, makes the case, not surprisingly, that everything is a remix, everything can and will be re-purposed. So is the future a void of any originality? Are we left as a culture to continually repeat ourselves? And what is the importance of “originality?”
If we go off the assumption that everything is in fact a remix and we all pull from somewhere else, we are our own lived experiences, or as John Hartley deems it, “ be a quote,” then is originality dead? And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing? Writing these sentences, I’m drawing from experience, using inspiration, re-purposing and co-opting the ideas I’ve learned my entire life to answer this question. Without this knowledge and my learned language this answer would be very different.
But getting back to the question, what repercussions does the lack of genuine originality have for the future of art and culture? To answer this I think it’s important to consider the issue of perception. Originality is in the eye of beholder. To assume that revisions, remixes, and mashups are trite and uninspired devalues what they are trying to achieve. Reexamining old practices, old art forms, is a necessary practice, essential for healthy and productive discourse. Moving forward, I think we need to reconsider the importance of “originality” or at least dis-empowered it’s meaning. Looking back and “reusing”can be quite productive.
I enjoyed reading the article by Ivey and Tepper this week because they made so many interesting points about the future of arts. They make the point that in the 20th century the focus was on professional artists creating the art, and quote Henry Jenkins when they say there has been a recent revitalization of folk culture. I feel as though this is true; in my experience I feel that there has been a huge emergence of DIY culture in recent years. If you look at etsy.com, you can find jewelry, clothing, paintings, etc. handmade by people who aren’t typically professional artists, but people who like to create in their spare time. Because of the internet, people who create these objects have the ability to share what they make with the world. This not only allows people to buy unique items, but in many cases may inspire them to create something of their own. I know I’ve seen many items on etsy and decided to try my hand at making something similar on my own. In this way, art creation is becoming a more common activity for everyone, not just professional artists.
Ivey and Tepper point out however that “citizens who have fewer resources — less time, less money, and less knowledge about how to navigate the cultural system” will be less able to participate in arts culture in the way that people who have greater accessibility are able to. I think this is why it is important for the future of arts organizations to reach out to people that have been underserved in the past, and to try and provide them with access to the latest technological and artistic trends. I think this will be a main focus of art and culture in our society: trying to provide access and information to everyone.
When it comes to imagining the future of art and culture in society, two key responses come to mind: first, my own personal vision and hope for art and culture in my local society (and how I may play a part); and second, the collective reality of what is happening in our greater society, based on historical analysis and current trends.
In a separate class, a group of us met with the public art manager for the City of Eugene. When asked about his vision of public art in the Eugene community in the next 10 to 20 years, he talked about the connection of cultural identity and place. He emphasized a vision where the gateways of Eugene (all the points of entry into the city, i.e the airport, I-5 exits, coming in from the coast) would all host great public art pieces that reflect and highlight Eugene’s cultural landscape in some fashion.
This concept is a powerful one. However, a city like Eugene can’t just install big art pieces by the side of the road and call it good. The community itself needs to live up to its reputation, or it is doomed to struggle with identity crisis after identity crisis.
This is where I resonated with what Bill Ivey said in his article about the role of professional amateurs – or, the Pro-Ams. The committed, creative, DIY, on-the-side artists that not only fill in the gaps of an artful culture, but they exist as the very foundation. These are the people that can laterally contribute to a thriving and creative local landscape.
In the bigger picture, however, there are bigger issues. We’ve discussed the role of technology in class and how it can be both a boon and barrier to arts participation. On the one end, technology – and within it, transmedia – is a vehicle through which our stories can be told in much more effective and swift fashions. The “curatorial me”, as Ivey describes, allows us to connect to and create our own creative experiences.
Our access to information has never been more open – until one considers barriers in age, education, socioeconomic status, and citizenship. With the ever-increasing speed of technological advancements, I am both curious and concerned about each generation to come and the implications of growing up in such a technologically-prevalent world. How will they adapt? How will will older generations adapt? How can we all continue to connect if we are all telling our stories in such different ways and using different means? Will we be as connected and disconnected as ever?
We have, and will always tell stories. It is undeniable that transmedia will continue to play a central role in the means of telling and distributing them. When it comes to the Internet, and our smart phones, and our [fill-in-the-blank], I hope that we will develop ways to use these resources in positive, engaging ways that continue to benefit the public good.
In her article, Suzanne Lacy paraphrases Wayne Winborne, saying: “There is art, and there is dialogue[…]and when they join hands in public, art is operationalized in the service of a civic agenda.” I hope that through the many waves and undercurrents of change facing our society, art will prevail, and the creative tools and opportunities offered by transmedia sources will be a significant reason for art’s success.
I hope, above all else, that we won’t succumb to our “digital sugar” addiction. But – if we’ve already succumbed – there’s probably a 12-step program on Youtube.
Choose you own adventure in the arts a blessing and a curse
It’s easy to see that the role, function and format of arts and culture is changing within our society. Many aspects of society are shifting and adapting due to changes in technology and social standards and methods of doing things. Through our course work we have explored what this means in our field often circling back to the themes of participation and transmedia creation, distribution, and knowledge building. It seems that transmedia explorations and participatory programming are dominating the theories on the direction for the future of arts and culture in society. While I agree that these theories are important I believe we should proceed with caution, taking time to critically asses the decisions being made. I would like to take a second to talk about the way that we have been discussing participation. Participation is a tricky term, I feel like innovation and thinking creatively about how to engage audiences has come to define participation. Professionals are focused on coming up with or catching on to the next wave or trend of any technology that will help increase participation. I still believe that a person going to see a performance, engaging with the material presented, connecting with performers and fellow audience members, embracing the shared unique experience constitutes participation. I am a sports fan so I would like to draw a parallel. I love football. Watching it on T.V. is great and is typically the way that I receive this performance but going to the game is a more engaging experience for me. When I go to the game I think of that as participating, I don’t want to go down on the field and throw passes to Eddie Royal, I want to watch a professional do it. The NFL like every other national sports league in America has cleverly created other ways, that if I so choose, I can participate. Fantasy Football, a great devise that makes the average fan who previously was only interested in watching one game, instantly have a vested interest in all games. Do I have to play fantasy football to enjoy football, no it is my choice to select my level of engagement or participation. I don’t think we have to add bells and whistles to our arts forms to create participation, as I feel like all art is inherently participatory in the simple act of witnessing it. I think that we need to be innovative and create ways that people who want to participate in new or different ways can. We need to create the fantasy football of the art world.
This week’s readings also discussed the way that technology has begun to blur the lines between field based art and museum based art, between the professional and the amateur. This is another trend that is easy to trace. It seems that anyone who has access to a lap top and the internet can create and distribute art, music, videos, etc. Everyone is an artist, and the options of what we can consume are endless. I think that we again need to further examine this professional/amateur relationship. I think that this surge in creation is fabulous and has created the ability for everyone to participate in art making and art sharing. But with the plethora of options available what really sticks out? I probably have seen hundreds of you tube videos in my life and right now I can think of one that stuck with me enough to really remember. This is probably just a personal preference but at any time I could list and vividly recall my top five theatrical shows, concerts, galleries or museum each of which left a clear and vivid mark on me emotionally and intellectually. I look at the mass amount of things be created, and through the beauty new technologies I can select what I want to learn more about, see, and experience. I can choose my own artistic adventure. This is truly revolutionary as Jenkins discussed civic ecology and communities of creation and knowledge sharing, which I think is good. But I sometimes I don’t want to be my own curator. If I had the option not to read Man’s Search for Meaning in high school I surely would have selected something else, but I am sure glad that I had to read it as it was a phenomenal story and exposed and enlightened my in new ways. Every day I wake up I turn on my computer I check my email then I look at the headlines on huff post and depending on how much time I have might click on tabs to further explore the news of the day (arts, sports, entertainment, and Denver). I never click on the environment tab although I am sure that the information is very important and that I would benefit from looking at it. Left to curate for myself, my world and experiences would be very small. I enjoy letting someone else show me new things, tell me why it’s important, and teach me something I wouldn’t have previously even thought about. I will admit that I am occasionally exposed to news or new information via social media tools, but that information is also limited to my friend network. I think that the arts can easily be this force, I personally appreciate an experience curated through someone else unique aesthetic lens. I don’t really have any answers only more questions. I think there is a balance that we should be aware of and strive for. On a last note Current TV was mentioned in one of our reading, a television channel created by Al Gore that boast nearly a third of programming contributed by viewers. After reading about this channel I went to their website and I discovered that they are an interesting model and maybe a good example of the balance and where the future of arts and culture is headed. The website had clips of videos of the content on the channel, and provided ways to discuss the content. It was a community of artists creating, sharing and discussing the works. They had the ability to select their level of participation. It’s all about choice and options, I guess. A glimpse into the future? Only time will tell.
The short answer is that I don’t. Art will live on. Artists will live on. Our individual and community identities will continue to be defined by the people with whom we interact on a regular basis. New mediums/technologies for expression and creativity will always be invented, changing the way that art is created, shared and experienced. There will always be innovators who push us forward and laggards who refuse to accept change and cling to the current ways of doing things.
Perhaps this is pessimistic; after all, what fun is it to know that nothing will ever really change? To know that the concerns about the effect of the Xerox machine 50 years ago are essentially the same as those about the iPod now? On the other hand, isn’t it reassuring to realize that we’ve been through massive shifts in arts consumption, creation and participation (all natural occurances) and to be able to take lessons from those experiences in order to address whatever cultural shifts head our way in the coming decade(s)?
So, no – I don’t imagine what the art of the future will look like because frankly that isn’t important to me. I don’t care what it looks like or sounds like or who makes the art (outside of the democratization issue raised in the readings and other comments here). The only thing that I care about is that we actually have art in the future. And, that means having the foresight to learn from past experiences and make better, smarter choices in the future.
As we move into the future of art and culture in society, the transmedia experience and inherent materials it brings will continue to produce, influence, and reshape the way the “pro-ams,” the “curatorial me,” and the “creatives” mentioned in the Ivey/Tepper article interact with and create our perceived culture. As long as we have access to technology, we can chose to be a participant and create through resources found or have the chance to let our worldview be shaped by the information we take in.
The issue of access continues to arise throughout this course and it seems to be something that needs to be continually addressed as we continue to develop technologies that let us connect on a global level. As future arts administrators, some of us, depending on the specific organizations we chose to work with, may have the opportunity to bridge these access gaps. Based in Seattle, Washington, Bridges to Understanding is a program I have been following for several years now. They use digital technology to teach storytelling to youth, while allowing children in classrooms using their curriculum to connect with other youth worldwide, from the United States to Africa to South America and beyond. A percentage of the youth participating in this curriculum are of backgrounds that would have not been able to gain access to this technology had Bridges to Understanding not entered their classrooms.
Education to me is always at the front of art and culture, whether it is on a formal or informal level. As someone that wants to work in the realm of arts education, finding ways to spread access to digital media will allow this powerful tool to further connect ideas and creativity on larger a global scale. Organization like Bridges to Understanding are helping to fill this niche and hopefully other projects of this nature will be produced.
I’d also like to throw out an opinion addressing a point brought up by both Jay and Nina in regard to rising technology potentially causing the demise of traditional art forms.
I feel confident that traditional art forms will continue to be preserved and remain in use within our world. As we become inundated with technology within every aspect of our lives, there is a calling to get back to something crafted by hand, away from staring at yet another screen.
I can’t speak with experience from all art forms, but I can speak within the realm of photography. Photography has been turned on its head over the past decade with the introduction of digital media. Within commercial photography and journalism, digital media has become the tool of choice. But within fine art photography, traditional methods are alive and well, especially amongst the younger generation.
With the rise of digital technology, a resurgence of antiquarian processes has come about – amateur, hobbyist and professional photographers alike are calling upon the salt, the platinum, and the carbon print, all processes born as far back as the early 1800’s. And sometimes the past and the present blend together, allowing for use of new technology and old craft.
The best part about these alternative photography processes is that they aren’t as reliant on the consumer photo market, since a large percentage of the materials can be put together by the photographer themselves, unlike standard silver gelatin and chromogenic printing processes. This fact alone allows for longer staying power as there is more flexibility for the artist to create needed materials than to have to rely on another person or a company to make needed supplies for them.
Surprisingly, this resurgence to traditional form isn’t occurring with the 50 and over crowd. It is occurring within the 35 and under crowd. I was at a conference last weekend, where one of the panels was a group of undergraduates from Western Washington University discussing their work. While they are learning both digital and traditional methods in their BFA program, most of their work leaned towards the traditional methods. When asked why, answers ranged from relishing in the history of the process to being so inundated with technology in every other aspect of their lives that this was the chance to get away from it all and work in an analog setting.
I am sure within other art forms a similar resurgence towards old methods can and will be found, even though it may not be the consumerist mainstream. This example within photography, summed up ever so briefly here, shows me the potential staying power traditional art forms can have. Jay stated that “these older methods of creating art could wane, and without an active intent to preserve the techniques and keep young people interested in these forms, there is a risk that some of them could become forgotten over time.” I hope arts participants and organizations strive to preserve and celebrate old art techniques as we advance in technology.
I agree with all the above predictions of increased participation. “They don’t want the arts; they want the arts experience”, states the Ivey/Tepper article. However, probably because of our future role as arts administrators, my thinking of the future often begins with the challenges! The Internet article, besides being thoroughly entertaining, presented several issues that are applicable to arts and culture, particularly transmedia experiences.
“I love the Internet. But sometimes I think much of what we get on the Internet is empty calories. It’s sugar – short videos, pokes from friends, blog posts, Twitter posts, pop-ups and visualizations…”
We’ve talked about this already…working to create meaningful experiences, not just ones that use something new or different for effect (one of the contributors to “Walking on Eggshells” echoed this too). And do one or two things well rather than try to keep up with seven or eight and not make it.
“But I have a larger fear, one rarely mentioned – the extinction of experience, the loss of intimate experience with the natural world…”
AND “The Internet so far has not given me no memorable experiences, although it might have helped to usher some along. It has always been people, places and experiences that have changed the way I think.”
I think there will also be an increased number of people pushing for more traditional interaction. And then of course those who do not keep up with all the current trends, either because they can not or have tried and choose not to. We need to also facilitate their involvement.
“We used to cultivate thought, now we have become hunter-gatherers of images and information.”
This is not necessarily a challenge, but it does bring up the issue we’ve also already talked about of where people are getting their information and experiences. Hopefully we’ll continue to be able to synthesize the information we do receive and “remix” it into personally meaningful experiences.
Also from Ivey/Tepper: “Our challenge today — as educators, artists, and arts leaders — is to figure out a way to thicken our cultural life for all Americans.”
I think that sentence sums up a lot of the discussion we’ve been having this whole term.
See my student blog for this post with pictures – which does make it seem much longer: http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/jeanelle/2010/11/16/the-future/
————–
I cannot help myself but to internalize the ideologies and theories of the authors I have been so very preoccupied with recently in this late date of the quarter. And those authors cannot help themselves but to suggest the future of the arts in their writings, just what I have been asked to divine here. So forgive me, then, if what I write seems familiar, although I promise none of it is plagiarized (it may, however be weirdly brief because I’m tired, so stay with me).
The End is Nigh.
Lots of historians will tell you that looking into the future with any kind of accuracy demands a reflection on the past. This is no more true in any context than it is in the arts. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that looking into the future of the arts is really a practice of conscientious and careful examination of the present. This would be based on a theory that the “arts” in any form (pick one, any one) is actually itself a practice of hindsight reflection… although I suppose it would need to be all fancy and pretty since it is the Arts. However, let’s leave that because it get’s to be a kind of time-space continuum/ flux capacitor kind of headache and this assignment is almost late already (in the near future it is late already).
But, if we are to look backwards to foretell the future of the arts, a distinct pattern may become increasingly visible, then clear, then undeniable. That the arts have become ever more democratized is hard to miss: with every step, with every new technology making every new media all the more accessible, with every new trend turning into generational aesthetic, the arts have traveled further and further away from the aloof coldness of the archaic smile to become unmistakably, and often uncomfortably, very very personal.
Digital communication technology, of course, has made art only that much more personal. Ivey and Tepper mention the concept of “curatorial me” (which instantly becomes “iCurator” in my head), and this is not such an alien idea. While many people with iPods generally enjoy music, the real unique element of an iPod is the capability of the user to select precisely what music to listen to and when. Similarly, the DIY culture that has emerged along with (and in lots of cases predating) gems on the Internet like wikiHow or eHow is in much this same vein. If it’s not there already, make it; participation with arts on a personal level includes every single grain and element the participant (me or you) wants it do, and excludes all those elements we don’t.
The demand for uniqueness of experience is characterized not only in iPods, however, but can also be distinguished in some more timely emergences, and oddly, I’m thinking specifically of the very recent mid-term elections and Obama’s subsequent “shellacking”. Although my daily experience of the news is in the form of NPR running in my living room while I get ready in the morning (because I’m afraid of ghosts that might come out at me if I let silence linger too long), I’ve heard several times now different opinions of what the results of the election are demonstrating. That the results indicate that the people are tired of stagnated legislation, that the people are rejecting the current administration, that the people are antsy for real action, etc. I have no intention of being political, but I will add my own theory about what the elections indicate: that the people (the voters) have an idea of individual “curatorial/ DYI” rights – that if what you want is not already put together for you, you gotta make it yourself – so much so that a considerable portion of the voting population has invented an unavoidable political party that is more Right-wing than the traditional Right-wing party (I’ll admit that I’m a liberal and this freaks me out). So to summarize this idea, individual curatorialism, the activity of democratizing participatory culture in general (of which the arts is certainly an important part) can include listening to a playlist you made on your iPod as well as participating in the Tea Party. This is the democratic form culture has taken most recently, although, as I said, this should be no surprise, if you have paid any attention to history.
For the arts more specifically, this personalization of participation in the arts (from deciding what is available to how the user will interact with what is available) goes hand in hand with another political trend, this one more directly related to the arts. The strategic plan of the National Endowment for the Arts for 2012 – 2016, revises the Endowment’s current focus on arts excellence and slogan, “A great nation deserves great Art,” to a focus directed at arts functionality and a new slogan, “Art works for America” (which is really cute, right?). In a way, this is a cycling backwards through history, a non-linear call back to the days of financial recovery (not unlike today) during the Great Depression and the Works Progress Administration, for which Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother is the eternal synecdotal image. However, this new emphasis on function of the arts – specifically to revitalize the national economy – aligns with the “curatorial me” trend to become something new all together. While, yes, the NEA is a government agency that is clearly adopting the functional perspective of the arts, the newest trend of functional arts are pretty much entirely on an individual level. Rather than the establishment of government administrations to inject the arts into communities like in emergency intravenous tap-style, the movement of arts to revitalize the economy takes the form of millions (307 million, perhaps) of individual arts activities. Each individual citizen, in the spirit of uniqueness of experience, will approach the functionality of the arts on an individual level. This is hardly new, and certainly not only in the future (it’s happening now), but this trend may prognosticate the future of the arts in the how participation in the arts will affect participation in greater cultures and communities.
Now, I’m only half kidding here, but I see it going one of at least two ways: option A – people turn to participation in the arts as an opportunity to gain a competitive edge (as in marketable jobs skills) or unique qualities compared to their peers, and in the process become super humans capable of correcting decades of pollution and negligence to restore the earth and her children to their former glory and abundance (a’la Ivey/ Tepper’s Cultural Renaissance only better), or option B – specialization of interests that turn into specialization of skills, because people choose to only focus their attention on things that they are interested in, becomes niche identity-making and facilitates a greater socio-economic rift to usher in a Brave New World of alphas and epsilons (a’la Ivey/ Tepper’s Cultural Divide only much much worse).
I’d like to go with the kinder option, that from the terrible ruins our nation’s economy currently finds itself in, the arts can find an opportunity to emerge phoenix-like from the dried up and pale remains of arts education and arts integration to find itself an inseparable element of community and cultural experience for all citizens, based on a boutique-utilitarian perspective of arts in America. That we will all have flying – electric – cars that are pure function, but look really cool and futuro-artsy, too
How do you imagine the future of art and culture in society?
How might transmedia experience/materials shape the future?
I am excited by the prospect of envisioning what the future of art and culture in society might look like. All I know for sure and what I hope for most, is that I will be surprised.
When reading Ivey and Tepper’s article Cultural Renaissance or Cultural Divide, I kept nodding my head enthusiastically while they discussed the idea of a Pro-Am Revolution, only to feel a stab of hopelessness when I realized the issues they brought up relating to the monopolization of culture were equally relevant as the dark side of my golden coin.
First of all, I want to share my personal experiences as a participant in the Pro-Am movement. When the gallery I worked for closed and I was struggling to find a new job I got involved with the web site Etsy. In terms of transmedia, Etsy is the EBay of the art world, giving artists, crafters, and vintage collectors the platform to create micro-businesses, stepping outside of the gallery structure for selling art. I’d say at this moment when I was least privileged (aside from the luxury of time that unemployment afforded me) I was able to use this tool to supplement a meager income. I was able to use Facebook, BlogSpot, and Twitter as almost my sole form of promotion. My eyes were opened to a world of people who were not crafting merely to craft but also as a form of social resistance to mass-produced goods.
I see this resistance in many facets springing up everywhere and I predict this trend will continue well into the future as people look for more economically and environmentally sustainable ways to live. You see it in the Slow Food movement. People everywhere are starting to grow food in their backyards and are participating in community gardens. There is a longing in many people I meet to return to a DIY lifestyle. There is an environmental demand for quality goods that are meant to last lifetimes. There is an economical need to promote local businesses in order to stimulate local economies. But as Ivey and Tepper so accurately point out, to be able to have the time it takes to maintain a backyard garden and create goods by hand is in many ways still a luxury. Handmade goods are expensive and for some purchasing a $50 handmade sweater is simply not an option when you can buy a $10 sweater at Walmart that was made in China. While this style of micro-culture grows stronger the mass-cultural facets become more monopolized through consolidation. I would like to hope that somewhere between the two a new structure will emerge that would make the micro-markets more accessible to those without the technologies or time to seek them out.
Aside from Pro-Am micro-markets, I see the future of art and culture in society becoming increasingly participatory and engaging as advances in technology allow for. I think it is only a matter of time before we have a structure for digitally accessing content that is not unlike the public library system. Netflix is a good example of a company that is starting down this path, with digital content being expanded weekly at a minimal monthly cost to consumers. Now thousands of films can be accessed from hundreds of devices from alarm clocks to iphones. The iTunes music store, and Amazon kindle’s library of digital books are other examples.
Advances in technology also bring new media that can be used as tools and subjects in art making. I’m really excited about this new instrument called the “Air Piano” that I heard about today. It is like a keyboard but its sounds are based on light sensors that read gestures made above its surface turning the musical performance into a dance. Can you imagine what this would look like larger scale, as a stage perhaps? Dance would generate the music vs. the traditional method of music inspiring the dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq3BqV36Ves&feature=related
As the tangibility of physical books, CDs, and DVDs are replaced by digital formats I predict that intangible art forms such as sound, ephemeral, and web-based artwork (Learning to Love You More) will also become more prominent. Art institutions will need to adapt in order to nurture and promote these forms or risk becoming obsolete.
The future of art and culture in society appears to have two levels: increases in participation and the use of digital technology. Community-based art programs are not new, but with web-based technology the way communities form, and for that matter, what is considered a community, are no longer bound by physical geography. “Art as shared inquiry can build investment on the part of all involved: artists can enrich their realm of knowledge; community members can glean new perceptions on their own lives; and opportunities arise for joint projects of mutual benefit.” (Lacy p.27) Art has always been a platform to vocalize common issues and concerns, and I cannot imagine the future will be any different. However, how we choose to produce and distribute these works might change.
In terms of access, the internet allows the ability to share information with a wide range of people, and it does not stifle individual creativity. Even though access to the internet is not universal (although perhaps in the future the proportion of people without it may be smaller), individuals are still able to create art works and share them with their community. People have always had the desire to create art, but transmedia technology allows for a wider distribution and a wider critique base.
As discussed by Ivey/Tepper article, there is an emergence of “Pro-Am” movement as a rejection of mass-produced culture. An important element in this movement is how the level of technology that is required to make amateur art. As the defining lines between high brow and low brow art blur, amateurs can create and distribute their art without a high cost or a complex infrastructure.
A developing issue in the area of arts and culture within society is the idea of intellectual property. As we discussed in the last module with remixing, intellectual property ownership is a controversial subject. With the sharing of source material people are ‘allowed’ to take and manipulate information to form new artistic creations. The Remixer’s Manifesto states that “To build free societies you must limit the control of the past.” Currently our society is dealing with legal issues surrounding sampling from copyrighted material. I think the in the future we will have to deal with choices of open source versus more restrictive copyright, and how new art will be categorized. Arts organizations will also need to adapt to this changing environment by finding ways to better engage with and serve their communities and possibly make adjustments to the mission of the organization.
As Ivey mentions, there are certainly two sides of the cultural coin, and we must take a look at both of them to really imagine the future of art and culture in society. Ivey seems to believe both sides are right since America is facing a growing cultural divide, a divide created upon how and where citizens get information and culture. However, we must admit if the penny is heads up, that means good luck; is one side of this cultural coin considered to be the luckier than the other? I am not so sure.
Perhaps many of our initial reactions would go towards the side that has more points of cultural access. On this side, there are those considered privileged by having easy access to the arts and culture through educational support and financial support, which of course opens doors to widespread technological support. These are the people that can afford to invest both time and money in their creative hobbies in a variety of ways. Moreover, they have more opportunities to culturally diverse interactions and multicultural engagements. On the other side of the coin are those who lack one or all of the above mentioned points of cultural access; educational, financial, and/or technological.
Again, I really am not so sure as to which side is the “luckier” side of the coin. I see advantages and disadvantages to both sides.
One comment that resonated with me from the Edge article, “Is the Internet Changing the Way We Think?” was from Ed Regis, a science writer, as he responded “the internet is simultaneously the worlds greatest time saver and the greatest time waster in history.” I have to agree with that (personally). Like Jay mentioned, I too fear for the state of the traditional art practices such as painting, live dance, live theatre, etc., with the increase in digital art and transmedia technologies. We must not neglect the tangible interaction that remains in art and culture.
The so-called “cultural underclass,” those limited with different points of cultural access, I feel have the ability to produce more authenticity in having limited resources; they are forced to create by what means they have. In some instances, it is almost as if making something out of nothing. As Roya has touched upon, there has been a reemergence from the DIY culture that is now very much apart of a popular arts culture, which is rooted in the ideals of reconnecting people with hands on activities and aesthetics associated with them . Moreover, art made from recycled materials is also very popular at this point of time. Again, this is an arts culture that needs very little technological aspects to craft and share such authentic, one of a kind pieces. In these ways, I believe these pieces to have more meaning, as well as hold more power to leave an inspirational impact.
In terms of how I imagine the future of art and culture in society; that is tough to predict. Just as today’s cosmopolitan consumer culture is not bound by old hierarchies (as it once was), I see this continuing and giving the rise to the “creative class” (as Richard Florida mentions in Ivey and Tepper’s “Cultural Renaissance of Cultural Divide?”); people who desire to be creative in all aspects of their lives—at work, and leisurely. I can certainly identify being part of a generation of this creative energy wanting to innovate and produce. Moreover, as Suzanne Lancy states the term “new genre public art” has now progressed to other common interchangeable terms such as the following: dialogic art, civic art, community based art, engaged art, relational aesthetic sand arts as a community cultural development. Furthermore, I envision more interchangeable terms to evolve over the course of the next few years, and I will assume “transmedia” or “technological” or “digital” to somehow be incorporated to these terms. As long as the root is expressive, reflective, and creative, transmedia materials will remain part of authentic art and culture in society, and more easily accessible to both sides of the cultural coin.
I agree with other comments from the class that it is difficult to predict the future. People in the 20th century thought we, today, would be in flying cars and living an awesome scifi style life, but not so. I also agree with some of the topics brought up in the Chronicle article. Amateur art is rising due to lowered costs on artisitic productions, thus making it more accessible to a wider audience. With a new array of technology and accessibility it is easier now for amateur artists, and others, to get their ideas out into the world. This leads me to think that the future will bring about a varied array of artists and ideas, new ways of showing pieces, and even more involvement between culture, community and art.
The transmedia experience/materials are already greatly shaping our futures in the art world and beyond. Many examples of this are shown in the topics we have discussed in class such as remixing, copyrighting, internet, etc… One transmedia source to follow for our futures is the internet. The Internet is a great source of knowledge and sharing of ideas. As stated in the “Edge” blog “…no one can resist the attraction of instant, global, communication and knowledge.” The blog posses the question: “Is the internet changing the way we think?” Yes I believe it is. Is this change good or bad? Like everything else it can go both ways. In one way the internet is an open array of knowledge, creativity, and ideas. It is a source that many people use for quick facts and much more. The problem that I have noticed is that many people seem to become too reliant on the internet. I myself rely too much on online facts to tell me what’s good or bad, how to make a bibliography, spelling, etc…Even with the influences from technology I agree with a statement from a blogger that it is still “…people, places, and experiences that have changed the way I think….” and live from day to day.
Another way transmedia is changing/shaping the future is through new devices such as the book knook, kindle, etc. These new reading devices are slowly changing the way we look at literature, by using a small electronic device instead of holding an actual book print. Some say that these will make books obsolete….I personally have a hard time believing that. Another ongoing change is in education. Many schools are starting to teach computer skills and are moving away from teaching good hand writing skill. Will handwriting become obsolete too? Doubtful, but the concentration on handwriting abilities has been slowly going down since I was in junior high.
So the future is in constant flux with new technologies, and transmedia sources. It is hard to predict the changes that will continue to occur, but I’m interested to see what will happen next.
What is in store for the future?
Although many of the modes of trans-media culture are already taking shape, I foresee many of these forms of learning, communicating, participating, and collaboration in the arts deepening and expanding in the future. As others have said, however, there are so many factors that can affect how arts and cultural practices actually take shape, that it is very difficult to predict just how they will look.
If I were to make assumptions, based on the current state of art and culture today, and how transmedia is shaping it, it would say that the future art world will be characterized by further collaboration, participation, multi-media, blended, and interdisciplinary tools, audiences as co-producers, co-creating, a fusion of many modes, medias and platforms, blended genres, and less of a distinction between professional and amateur arts practices. News, film, entertainment, reading and literature, and art all will provide opportunities for consumers to be producers, providing input, information, images, sounds, video, and personal experience to the medium at real-time.
I hope to see an increase of democratic access to the necessary technologies of the future to level the playing fields, and open-source, free-source access to the infinite artifacts of historic and contemporary culture.
I for-see that although remix and appropriation are not new ideas, but the concepts and practices will be accelerated.
I gave a lecture yesterday to a class of undergraduates that discussed major compositional trends in classical music and the religious, social, and political values that influenced those trends. When thinking about what values I was going to list for the late 20th/early 21st century, I found myself at a loss. It was so easy to talk about music during the Enlightenment or the age of Impressionism – the world was smaller, and the values were obvious and seemingly less complex. However, the only thing I could come up with when discussing present day was technology. It was easy to find a technological connection with the music that is being composed today especially in relation to film. To me the connection of technology seemed much stronger than that of religion or politics. Granted, technology is not a value, but science is…Is scientific thought the value that is shaping our arts and culture in this area? If the answer is yes, then I can’t help but to resort to my history lessons and say that there will be a definite movement against it or towards another direction. What that direction might be, I cannot presume to answer fully.
I do however, believe that it will be in line with the values of a collective of one sort or another. The Ivy/Tepper article talks about values “being shaped by local experiences”, something I’m not sure holds entirely true anymore (even though this article is only 4 years old). Are local experiences still what shapes cultural/artistic values or does it now include virtual experiences? Is it due to this that our values are so wide-spread and difficult to define? Individuals are no longer limited by their local environment to provide those value-making experiences and I feel that has had a huge impact on our art. Think Paris Exposition of 1878 but giant and you don’t have to leave your living room – oh an you can access it multiple times, at any time, and therefore it has no real impact on you, or your values.
I can’t predict the future, nor do I wish to. However, if science and history have taught us anything it’s that every action has an equal and opposite reaction…better start brushing up on how to use an abacus.
As Ivey and Tepper suggest in “Cultural Renaissance or Cultural Divide?” the future of art and culture in society will be based on professional-amateur (pro-am) creative works, where “inexpensive digital technology, Internet communication, and a new enthusiasm for hands-on art making hold out the promise of a rich, postconsumerist expressive life” (pp 6-7).
In many ways, the future that Ivey and Tepper rationalize is already here. Consider the arts-heavy Tumblr micro-blogging platform. Professional and pro-am artists alike use Tumblr as it provides an easy way to post, curate and communicate. Twitter is also moving into a similar service space with its newly expanded features that include embedded images and video, though Tumblr seems to be better suited to the arts community due to its theme-sharing functionality and fresh aesthetic.
With the Internet connecting a global audience, it provides opportunities to take what traditionally would be a local art show or rock concert to a potentially international stage. This functionality when aligned with micro-blogging and macro-marketing empowers the seemingly unknown with tools that only the giant corporations and distributors had access to in past decades. Access, technology, asynchronous collaboration, and widespread curation will empower arts, culture and participation well into the future.
Tumblr
Apologies for the late post… I like three concepts that came up in the Tepper/Ivey readings: Weekend Warriors,
Pro-Am Revolutionaries, and the Curatorial Me’s. These ideas stem from more choices, more access, more participation, and more mass sharing (and certainly transmediations factor into this). But, an additional reading I did over the weekend for Cultural Policy also talks about the Cultural Entrepreneur, and how 50 years ago philanthropy was vested with individuals who had little sense of entrepreneurship. The article ponders, “only time will tell whether or not the US is moving toward a national artistic deficit or a new era of innovation.” I believe the future of the arts will be comprised of individuals who are much more commercially savvy. Even if the work they produce is process-driven and has no market value, the shift towards a broader “cultural consumption” that relates to Richard Florida’s creative class will be a way for artists and arts organizations to leverage their value.
also sorry for the late post…..
I like how our class really has a diverse opinion of what is going to happen in the future. I would have to agree with what is suggested by a Cultural Renaissance. I also agree with believing that arts experience will become more localized. Also, if it were up to me, society will find a way to reduce the dependency on technology to spread ideas and eventually find a way to spend less time online and more time face to face or in museums. I agree with some people thinking that the ‘end is near’, but even if I single handedly have to support the revolution, I will be the first person to get rid of twitter. I hope that arts organizations will not agree with social pressures of connecting with social media because I think that it only works for certian types of organziations, not ALL of them. Honestly, I think there will come a time that, like all new invention, the internet as we understand it will become frivolous and obsolete. I hope I am here to enjoy that article that reads “What was with all that blogging and tweeting of the early 21st century.? What silly nonsense, we are much further along now.”