Blogging is probably bad for one’s reputation in the art world
An interview with Alex Soth
Via Conscientious
The one caveat is that blogging is probably bad for one’s reputation in the art world. The art world is built on exclusivity. Blogs are built on availability. Most art stars don’t even have websites for fear of appearing pedestrian. But photography, for me, is a pedestrian art. It is democratic and accessible. So I participate in the blogosphere knowing full well that it probably hurts my art-world reputation.
This maybe true, but more and more artists may find a "direct to consumer" approach another path which opens doors to opportunity and audience. There is tangible value you have having people involved in your body of work over time even as you are striving for other things - gallery and books.
What do you think?
Comments
I think something similar goes for the professional photographer. You don't exactly get your colleagues respect for being on Flickr. I think you may actually do damage to your professional reputation for "competing" with non-professionals.
However, the boundaries are blurring and in the end we have to think ourselves in relation to the rest of the world. If art isn't for the people, then what is it for.
These days creating has become easier, but it's much harder to stand out. Giving the tools to everyone means we have more possibilities and hopefully could grow much more by sharing experiences.
This is definitely a time of change, and I think it will be really interesting to look back at in 30 years time.
Posted by: alex | December 2, 2006 03:12 PM