Here's an idea, your web browser
is replacing the art gallery.
[THEME MUSIC]
I don't know about you guys, but when I'm in the mood
to see some visionary, super new visual art, I think to myself,
let's go to the gallery, and not, let's stay in the kitchen
and sit at the computer in our pajamas.
But the fact of the matter is that many of the art world's
best, newest, and most challenging artworks
are viewable only (ECHOING) on the internet!
Bum bum bah!
Since the mid-18th century, we've
been going to galleries and museums to view artworks.
Like, real locations in meat space,
where you can eat cheese, and touch people, and fall down
and stuff.
There's some kind of hard-to-explain feeling
you get when you're standing in front of something
you know Renoir actually painted.
This feeling is really elusive and hard
to recreate without actually being there.
And this has always been the importance of the gallery.
It provides a place where the art world can coalesce.
It brings all of the newest, greatest art figures
together and gives the public a place
to lose their shit over the newest Rauschenberg or a Brillo
box.
But now, a lot of the most interesting and challenging
stuff has moved out of the gallery--
a place which is probably not near where you live--
and to the internet, which is here,
right now, in front of you.
[DING, DING, DING]
The new hotness in the arts isn't
hanging on a wall somewhere really hard to get to,
it's chilling on a server just a few tipity-taps away.
I don't actually type like this.
I type like this.
Stuff like hyper-geography, a tumblr which
isn't so much a blog as it is a visual cacophony of-- my God.
Takeshi Murata's Pink Dot, which turns Rambo
into a seething, drippy mess of video.
Or Jon Rathman's 9-Eyes, which presents Google Street View
photos as portraits, and landscapes, and candid photos.
These are all works which are not only amazing and arresting,
but also don't need a gallery.
Sure, Ryan Trecartin, Olia Lialina, Evan Roth
are all internet artists who've had their awesome internet
artworks shown at real museums.
Like, real, real-- like, you could eat cheese there real.
But you didn't have to go there, because these works also
live online.
Just because it's available to everyone,
that doesn't make internet artwork
any less important or moving.
In many senses, internet art's extreme accessibility
is the exact opposite of the gallery.
It's also a way to provide an art experience that
isn't anything like standing in front of something made by one
of those long-dead, not-internet-having masters,
but is just as relevant.
Or maybe even more relevant, because we
can experience amazing cutting-edge art
as part of our daily lives.
I can experience great art as easily
as I can buy this kitty pillow.
[MEOW]
Both are just a few clicks away.
Art critic Robert Hughes said that the truly significant work
of art is the one that prepares the future.
And if internet artworks aren't doing that,
I'm not sure what is.
What do you guys think?
Can you have an art experience through your computer screen?
Let us know in the comments.
And if you haven't, you should subscribe.
Just click on my face.
Twitter, am I right?
Let's see what you guys had to say.
DrFaustVII says, it's not that tweeting is an art,
but that it can be used to create art, which is a pretty
nice summation of the episode.
Stupiddorkdancer and Atlien make mention
of small Spanish language stories
called cuentitos, which sound really cool.
A bunch of people made mention of Ernest Hemingway's
very short, very serious story, which
goes, "For sale: baby shoes, never used."
Which would have been a very depressing tweet.
Marciasarah asks if social media is changing language.
And jaxofspades87 responds that it's probably not
too different from the past.
You stupid monkey.
Mattii brings up the idea of cell phone novels,
which is an idea that we had, but didn't end up including.
It's actually really interesting and you
should go read the Wikipedia entry on it,
because the episode is over now.
[THEME MUSIC]