Public vs. valuable. Art is rapidly being sold, resold and
made available around the globe. A local audience might lose art in the trade,
others gain. The market determines distribution of art, sorted by availability
of wealth. Art has always accompanied wealth. This way art is truly getting
global, and at the same time getting local. Globalization makes audiences
mobile. Art attracts tourist and revenue. Still, art is becoming local for
those who live within bubbles of wealth. Like for those living in Oslo,
Copenhagen, London or Los Angeles. Top art objects are put into museums around
the wealthiest parts of the world, thus becoming of less relevance to the
global audience. Digitalization could change some of this. The Internet has
become the new gallery making art available to everybody here and now. How
could this influence art? The low status of street-art visualizes the cost of a
noncommercial perspective: availability to everybody, anywhere. By depicting
decaying art, Damien Hirst (!!) is really challenging appreciation of art, also
economically. Hard sell! The iconic pieces of art gain value from exposure
while the “average” piece of art risk becoming a digital commodity. Thereby it
might lose some of its financial attraction? The other argument is that the
digital art consumer is also a potential buyer of art and availability
increases demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment