The Future of Arts Publications (complete essay)

“There’s an app for that!”

I wouldn’t be surprised if it exists already. Downloading applications to iPhone, tweeting on Twitter, adding friends to a MySpace account is a rather mundane task by now. Social networking, for better or worse, has become an extension of everyone’s id. How does this affect the type of the content we receive electronically – not to mention its quality and quantity – and how do we physically perceive it? Tweets are limited to 140 characters and most cell phone screens are no larger than two-inches square. As we become increasingly “plugged in” our capacity to reflect and ponder upon the information received decreases – including how art is viewed and understood.

The coffee table book for example, is destined for extinction and will be replaced by a Kindle. There once was a certain amount of gratification associated with lugging an 8lb. catalogue raisonné of Michelangelo’s greatest works from one apartment to another. This will no longer be necessary. Most of us students spent a lifetime looking at famous works of art in books and magazines until we could travel to Paris or Italy to actually see them firsthand. And while these images rested comfortably between the pages of a book, we could always visit them at our leisure before and after a voyage. This in fact, is no longer necessary either. Nowadays, a simple Google search will bring up a few hundred thousand paintings to look at. I don’t see artist made publications coming back anytime soon either, if they did, how would they be distributed if all our friends are online? There were many who thought Gutenberg’s printing press would put the kibosh on the written manuscript. Will artist blogs and podcasts be the knock-out punch to the jaw of movable type? I doubt it.

When it comes to art magazines, I don’t see any changes other than advertising dollars shrinking and printing costs rising. A few less to read won’t really matter anyway. They’ve always been a specialized press; the ones who survive will continue to serve the arts industry and their constituency as usual. What is changing however, are the very same publications offering abbreviated versions of their magazine online and the option to download a copy for print. Add to this, hundreds of do-it-yourself publishing companies like Lulu or Kodak that give artists the freedom and luxury to get the word out at a minimal cost. In both instances, this helps to increase readership and foster an appreciation for the arts. This is good. Perhaps we could learn something from the LA based Coagula Art Journal, now in its 17th year, as an example of doing just that.

So you might begin to think that the internet is democracy’s greatest ally – a voice for and an eye on the world. I believe it’s actually fostering thousands of exclusive factions and groups (political, artistic or otherwise) with very narrow objectives and target audiences. The problem is everyone’s talking and no one is listening or even commenting. And while artists might upload their work to the internet in an effort to circumvent dwindling exposure in traditional press sources, it is actually hurting them. The idea that art speaks to everyone has just gotten harder to hear over the din of a thousand invisible voices competing on the same computer platform. I still believe there are many news sources and general publications that aren’t doing enough to cover the arts (which would help to alleviate the cacophony of the internet at least on a local level); this would help to establish the arts as a credible and newsworthy feature, a staple of any publications editorial content. On the other hand, art blogs can only fill the void left by the traditional press temporarily, until they too become, fodder for hundreds of other blogs uploaded every day. In the end, the only cure for the arts and its exposure is to keep a copy of the painting you’re standing in front of, firmly imprinted in your mind’s eye.

Kevin Freitas