Contemporary Art Daily and Instagram, or, the People’s Gallery (2018)
REBECCA MELMAN
The internet is an open, accessible space for all who have access to WiFi and a computer, smartphone or tablet. The art world, however, has always been elusive, functioning within a relatively traditional system of museums, galleries, dealers, buyers and most importantly, artists. What used to be confined to galleries and museums is now available to anyone with access to the internet because of platforms such as Contemporary Art Daily and Instagram. Increased online access to art has not only changed the way art is consumed but has also changed the context in which the art is portrayed. The presence of the internet in the art world has created a cybernetic feedback loop that has changed the way we view, create, purchase and circulate art.
Given the accessibility of the internet, learning about art can be as easy as a Google search. However, for most of history, art viewing was limited to the upper echelons of society. This exclusivity, paired with the integral role of wall texts in museums, gave traditional art institutions, such as museums, the authority on the interpretation of art. Found in Mesopotamia in 530 BCE, Princess Ennigaldi-Nanna’s collection of artifacts is considered the first museum. When archaeologist Leonard Woolley discovered the site in 1927, not only did he find that the artifacts were set up very intentionally, but he also found clay cylinders inscribed with writing, associated with these artifacts. These discoveries led art historians to believe that the cylinders functioned as the first “museum labels,” and Ennigaldi-Nanna as the first curator. Museum labels continued to hold an important role in museums, as they dictated how the art was to be interpreted. Art was held in private collections, primarily owned by wealthy families or institutions. Public access to art was limited to the “respectable” upper class, and created an exclusive and elitist environment. In the 18th century, museums began to open up to the public, and as the only resource for viewing works, art historians and curators of these museums became an authority on the interpretation of art. To this day, in museums and galleries, viewers are provided with a label, or wall text, presenting the artist’s name, title of the piece, date that the piece was made, medium of the work, and a few words from the curator. The curator will often write about the intentions of the piece. Because art exhibitions in galleries and museums have always presented artworks as objects, the curation in which these pieces were presented was simply a part of the greater experience of looking at art. However, in post modernity, that has changed, and changes even more so with the unavoidable presence of the internet and technology.
Art has shifted from being classified as either painting, photography, sculpture, video or performance into an unclassifiable, curated experience that allows for open reading and analysis. Not only do postmodern artists combine these mediums, they also use everyday objects, discarded materials, and the viewer. This is not to say that art preceding modernism did not challenge the viewer or garner reaction from the public and from the art world. However, postmodern artists incorporated the viewer’s experience into their art-making like never before. Having the viewer be an integral part to the piece created a feedback loop in art-making and viewing. As Christina Dunbar-Hester wrote in her article, “Listening to Cybernetics”, “One of the principle tenets of cybernetic theory was related to the supposed ability of a cybernetic system to detect, through communication and feedback, signals, or messages containing ‘information’ (Dunbar-Hester, 2011, 121).” Artists began to incorporate cybernetic theory into their work by breaking the boundaries between object and viewer. This allowed for a playful interaction, and challenged the traditional notions that art should just be something to look at.
Marcel Duchamp, one of the first conceptual artists of the early 20th century, is known as a defiant of conventional art and often made artwork that required viewer participation. His piece, To Be Looked at (from the Other Side of the Glass) with One Eye, Close to, for Almost an Hour, consists of the object, any individual who follows the directions, and the viewers that pass by the individual looking through the glass. The object, a window of sorts, is embedded with lines of red, yellow, brown and black that make up geometric shapes. A pyramid floats above a magnifying glass peephole that sits on top of what looks like a post. An individual viewer is meant to follow the directions of the title and in doing so, becomes a part of the piece. The spectators will likely take in information from seeing that interaction, and follow suit. Once the first individual is finished looking, another bystander will behold the piece through the glass. This creates a feedback loop: The object and the title are the initial inputs into the system, while the viewer who looks through the other side of the glass is the output. The object, title and viewer contribute to the first completed feedback loop. Then, the rest of the audience and their reactions are the next output, creating art that becomes a cybernetic system.
Feedback loops, as seen in works of art, are also occurring in the circulation and presentation of art. Websites like Contemporary Art Daily have created change in the feedback loop of the art world, usurping museums and galleries as the new tastemakers. Museums and galleries used to be the only way for the public to view art and for collectors to buy art. Now, thanks to the internet, there are countless ways for the public and private collectors to learn about new art. Prior to the internet, the feedback loop seen in the art world was relative to wealth and prestige. In this system, the galleries functioned as the “primary route to and provider of financial stability (Abrams, 2013)” for artists, curators and gallery owners. Galleries and critics decide what artwork is to be shown and what the market value of that art will be(input), then collectors provide the money(output). That money then turns into input for the artists and the galleries, creating a feedback loop. Now, given the new accessibility of art, the feedback loop is being transferred to the hands of the internet. This transition is exemplified by contemporaryartdaily.com. The site presents art shows and exhibits from around the world. Unlike galleries, the site looks to its audience for input, as it offers an option for users to submit email recommendations of exhibitions they would like to see featured, which are then curated by the site owners. The submissions are mostly from galleries and artists. The website’s interface is such that it mirrors a traditional gallery, with its white walls and simple text. The exhibitions are shown identically, in the most objective way possible. In addition to being provided with a multitude of installation photos, intended to display the curation of the exhibit, we are also given photos of individual objects and details. In her essay for The New Inquiry, Loney Abrams writes about how Contemporary Art Daily’s interface interferes with the role of the gallery curator. She writes, “This standardized format provides a systematic and formulaic experience of every exhibition, and in some ways, usurps the role of the curator by linearly directing the viewing experience.” However, the website fundamentally differs from galleries because it does not require visitors, nor does it need the art it presents to be purchased. While galleries, on the other hand, need visitors, and more importantly, patrons, to operate (fiscally). Despite the website’s ability to function without an audience, Contemporary Art Daily has become a fundamental source for information regarding contemporary art exhibitions and has successfully driven traffic away from gallery websites and print publications, which used to be the primary source of circulation for contemporary artists. It is even developed into a source for collectors to make purchase decisions. The creator of the website, Forrest Nash, said in an interview that, “...we’ve had some very hard lobbying… by galleries.” This shows the important role that the site curators have: they are responsible for deciding what information will be disseminated into the artworld. This kind of authority mirrors that of the traditional museum; Contemporary Art Daily has replaced museums and galleries as “tastemakers” in the world of contemporary art. Buying art, prior to the debut of the internet in the art world, occurred within physical spaces, such as galleries and auctions. Contemporary Art Daily has introduced collectors to purchasing art online, based on JPEGs, and has eliminated the spatial specificity that was a necessary part of the existing feedback loop. Contemporary Art Daily has also replaced galleries as the providers of information in the art world, and has demonstrated that brick-and-mortar locations are no longer needed to sell art. Contemporary Art Daily has carried the business aspect of the art world into a cybernetic system.
The increasing importance of online circulation of art has had an effect on contemporary art and the way in which that art is presented in the galleries. Gallery architecture and artworks have also been affected by Contemporary Art Daily’s interruption of the art world’s existing feedback loop. Critic Michael Sanchez wrote about Contemporary Art Daily, and how it has influenced changes seen in art. He writes, “Images from these exhibitions - which take place within a relatively predictable array of galleries and Kunsthalles in Europe and America - are compiled into a standard format against austere white backgrounds, with textual information in Times New Roman font, and links to share each page via social media discreetly underneath each image. Despite presenting their content in the ostensibly neutral way… these white pages... dictate the terms by which images circulate, and survive, within them (Sanchez, 2011).” His stance is that the site exemplifies a broader phenomenon seen in what is called post-internet art. Critics often argue that much of today’s art is made so that it looks good on the internet. This means that the curation of the website is inherently tied with the artworld’s feedback loop - the artists make their works, the galleries put out shows, the shows are submitted to the curators of the site, they filter what will be shown, and then artists react to what is shown, which perhaps infers what is desirable in the art world. If the most popular form of art dissemination is via the internet, it is only logical that artists alter their work so that it is likely to be popular on that medium. Galleries, in addition to artists, have altered their presentation as well. In another essay, Art and Transmission, Sanchez makes clear that the lighting installed in spaces are intended to mimic the glow of the screens that we have grown so accustomed to. He writes, “These galleries all employ a large number of high-wattage fluorescent-light fixtures, as opposed to more traditional spot lighting, making their walls pulsate like a white IPS screen (the now-ubiquitous LCD technology introduced by Apple in 2010) (Sanchez, 2013).” In cybernetic theory, feedback systems “could be described in terms of information, feedback, and control (Dunbar-Hester, 201, 117).” The growing popularity of social network sharing technologies and sites like Contemporary Art Daily has given the internet control of the art world, so much so that the work of artists, and its presentation, is being formed, informed by and distributed through these platforms.
Contemporary art has also reacted to our constant connectivity. Sanchez writes of art that is highly circulated and demanded on Contemporary Art Daily. He states that these popular works are often composed of muted tones and textiles that seem “used, foxed, repaired (Sanchez, 2011, 60).” Perhaps this is due to the attachment to our screens. He writes, “Eyes tired from constant backlighting gravitate toward images of foxed textiles and Belgian linen, weathered wood and stone. This compensatory effect is not only produced through and encounter with the work in the gallery, but also through the screen itself (Sanchez, 2011).” Perhaps this “gravitation” is a result of hyperconnectivity. As Ellie Harmon writes in Experiences of Dis/Connection Beyond the Moment of Non/Use, “disconnection … is not just about techno-purification, but rather about short-circuiting some of these more multiply entangled relations and flows (Harmon, 2015, 145).” In this context, the information provided in the feedback loop is not sourced from Contemporary Art Daily’s curatorial choices, but instead from the public’s need to disconnect. If the cybernetic loop functions from this perspective, then we are looking to art as our resource of disconnect. Artists too, are connected, and their means to disconnect is to make art that utilizes soft textures and is muted in tone.
Instagram holds a controversial role and often deliberated in the art world. Not only is it a platform for the distribution of art, but also a medium in itself. It confronts what is considered to be art and how artists are discovered. To become successful in the artworld, an unknown artist must be “found”. As a platform for artist discovery, Instagram provides young artists the tools they need to increase their visibility in the art world, as long as they function within the neoliberal ideal. In Ilana Gershon’s piece “Un-Friend My Heart: Facebook, Promiscuity, and Heartbreak in a Neoliberal Age,” she analyzes the emergence of a “managerial self” and an individual as “a collection of assets that must be continually invested in, nurtured, managed, and developed (Gershon, 867).” Thus, the young artist’s should present herself as a brand in order to find success. Chloe Wise, a self professed “multidisciplinary artist,” is the darling of the art world, the fashion world and the Instagram world. Wise, who has 86.2k followers on Instagram, perpetuates this notion of a neoliberal artist. In addition to using Instagram as a platform to share her art, she chronicles her fantastic lifestyle on the same account. Ironically enough, she claims her art is commentary on “consumerism, excess and vanity of modern society.” She is the poster-child for post-internet art. A Vulture piece on the artist sums up the neoliberal implications of Wise’s “brand” as an artist, and the negative responses that come with her overwhelming presence: “Wise’s youth, chosen subjects, and affinity for self-promotion have given rise to predictable grumblings from those who see… her work as slight or trendy and sneer at her social presence…. one critic at an arts publication moans to me over the phone[,] “Everyone is doing these figurative works that look really good on Instagram. But the real litmus test is if you Google an artist and it’s all photos at parties… [and] vanity shots (Pressler, 2017).” Regardless of how many critics she may have, she has found prominence both in the art world and on the Instagram world, due to her ability to maintain a distinct image and brand. Similarly to Contemporary Art Daily, Instagram has introduced a feedback loop into the discovery of artists. Prior to Instagram, artists were normally discovered through an existing network of galleries, art dealers and art schools. Instagram changed this structure; millions of users like and comment on the content of their choosing, thus deciphering what is or is not popular. Users who are involved in Instagram’s micro-art world indirectly decide who will or will not be discovered. Collectors have taken note of this; “51.5% [of collectors] have purchased works from artists they originally discovered through Instagram (Soboleva, 2015).” Instagram simultaneously created a cybernetic system in the discovery of artists and sustains a platform in which artists can pursue their neoliberal selves.
As digital technology becomes more prevalent in modes of interpersonal communication, it is instilling in our culture a cybernetic system. Instagram and Contemporary Art Daily are some of the many online platforms that are changing the traditional structures of the art world. The artworld has been infiltrated by various digital art-viewing and sharing platforms that have disrupted the physicality and spatial necessity of art circulation, creation, purchasing and viewing.