i. Google Skills, A Framed Picture of Toe Nail Polish Accidentally Spilled on a Carpet Next to a Picture Claiming That the Other Picture Isn’t Art, 2011.
ii. Alex Kellogg, 2012 via phone as medium.
iii. Dream Beam, "Art", 2012.
What is art? What can constitute art? If art is defined by its properties, then traditional 'properties' that used to define art, such as being in a gallery, being on a plinth, being painted, being one of a kind no longer seem to fit what art has morphed into. Personally, I think it's really exciting seeing the internet and digital media democratise the process of producing and distributing art. Think flickr, tumblr, instagram [click for an interested read]. Especially in music, you can really see the process evolving. Making and distributing music, which once involved many people, the artist, a studio, a record company, record stores, can now be done by one person in their bedroom, with a laptop, some [very easily bootlegged] production software, and a website like soundcloud or bandcamp, both free to use. I think it's a shame that many people don't appreciate electronic music made and released in this way (eg. "bring back real music"), just like many people don't appreciate digital (or digitally edited) photography, or modern and contemporary art. I don't feel like it's something that can be turned back or should be resisted. Like I said above, I think it's exciting to be able to witness and to be a part of this change.
Here is another interesting, slightly related article about online curatorship. This whole topic - digital culture / art and technology / online viewership - is something that really interests me because it's inescapable. Food for thought: the very blurred line between portfolio platforms, blogging platforms, and social networks... maybe another topic for another day.
