100 thoughts on “Is the Web Browser Replacing the Art Gallery? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

  1. They are considered a form of art in one sense. Look at The Sims series, for example. Many people produce art work and photography within the game, and there are threads on forums such as Garden of Shadows and Black Pearl Sims dedicated to it.

  2. I like a lot of stuff I see on the internet but there is a dimension that you can not produce on the screen of a computer- at least as far as I've seen (and I've been through a lot of web pages of art).
    Though in that there is something about the internet that would be hard to duplicate in the physical plane…

  3. it's not how or where the art was created, but the meaning behind it and the experience you have having first seen it.

  4. The difference between real galleries and the internet is the problem of discoverability. It's easier to find great art you didn't know existed in a museum because you don't have to know the things inside existed beforehand. Online, yes you have things like deviantart, but the best stuff is weird and you often really have to know what you're googling for.

  5. Hi all
    May I present to you "Colours of Destiny".
    A truly unique and original online book series, combined with musical score!

    I hope you all find this a touching and artistic story.

    Be the first to see the introduction and subscribe!!!

  6. The web browser isn't replacing the art gallery; it's just another way to present said art. Museums are still around, aren't they?

  7. the means of connectivity to art is no subject to location, rather the feeling you experience seeing it. that's art. that's why i could be just as moved at the moma, some odd mushroom man graffiti'd over the interchange on some highway, or on reddit.

  8. It's easy for great artists of the past to have been invisible until they were dead because they lacked the necessary social skills to become popular.

  9. I'm not gay, but I'm attracted to Mike. Does Mike turn people gay? Sinister wizardry!! I demand to know the science behind this!

  10. I believe that galleries are for artists that are popular and accepted and the Internet is to grow and challenge the new artists who would otherwise never be recognised

  11. i wanted you to mention seapunks, their "art" style gained popularity with azalea banks video "atlantis" and rihanna's performance of "diamonds" on snl. it's basically dolphins and columns and look like a windows 95 cutting edge screensaver. maybe you could touch on the idea of "intellectual property" and what that means.

  12. D: I call my dad "Daddy-O" so does that mean I am not "people" if "people don't use" that word anymore? … damn you fetured comment for making me question my existence!

  13. Thank you for insulting my years of study in art, and the several years of study in digital art, because apparently I make mind-blowing art by clicking on a magical button in photoshop called "Insta-Fab-Art" and "POOF!" I get fab art. Digital art is not easy, and people who think that photoshop will make a crappy artist an amazing one, or even a halfway decent one, are rude. Photoshop and art studios are a tool, they don't teach you anything. You STILL have to be good at traditional mediums.

  14. Not really, people will still go to galleries to buy art. And if it gets to the point where physical art is regularly sold over the internet, then the gallaries will go digital.

  15. Well while it is easy for people to see a whole bunch of artists, it's really really difficult for an artist to get noticed.

  16. I don't feel anything but annoyed at having to share my moment with a work of art with the pain of being stepped on.

  17. How long does a short story have to be before publishing the whole thing on Youtube permission constitutes copyright infringement?

  18. Is there a channel that gives regular updates on cool new and interesting art? Internet or otherwise? I'd totally subscribe. Ideachannel? Anyone?

  19. I have a tumblr which is dedicated to showing off the most trippy art on the internet Though it is a place that you would want to avoid if prone to seizures… it is located here dmtimage.tumblr.com/

  20. The gallery will always have a place in art. Though the cumputer screen is becoming a popular medium, there are other media that, like you said, can only be experienced in person. And just because these media or works are "old" doesn't mean they don't "move humanity forward" or "prepare them for the future." The Federalist 51 is still relevant today, and baroque music can still convey the emotions of modern music. The presence of new "stuff" does not explicitly render older "stuff" obsolete.

  21. …ok…cmon, I could also throw the "this is the internet" at you too, the internet isn't completely censored, if your looking for censored child friendly entertainment go watch television, because apparently you don't know how to internet… and cant handle it…

  22. I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but there is an artistic value, to me, in these videos, so by definition then, yes, the internet can be a place to experience art.

  23. I love the reference to art critic Robert Hughes : "The only significant work of art is the one that prepares the future"

    — kitty pillows & avant garde glitch art tumblrs —

    There is a "flattening" that's going on in terms of culture — I can see how that can be disturbing on the one hand, but it's also fun, fast, playful. It's about speed, speed, speed. Everything is coming at you faster.

  24. There is an amazing site called artsy.net that brings a gallery experience to your browser. Art from museums and galleries from around the world are displayed in accurate colors and ratios. There is also art from emerging artists. The art is tagged, searchable and browseable, so you can find similar artists & movements. You can also arrange to buy art through the site.

  25. The biggest difference I think is that most people are looking at art on screens no bigger than 17 inches, which is a hugely different experience than standing in front of a human figure painted larger than life.

  26. Just as easy to be invisible in the real world though. While the lower barrier to entry means that it might be harder to get your stuff found on DeviantART, at least you don't have to worry about the only gallery willing to display your stuff being on the wrong end of town.

  27. mona lisa 31" x 21"
    my cheap ass monitor: 13" x 20"
    turning my monitor sizeways i have only a slightly scaled down mona lisa (11"x8" short) if i display it on my TV (as i am want to do) then i will be greatly scaling UP the mona lisa.
    i don't think it's the size, i think it's the atmosphere and the fact that you did a lot of work to go do that and as such feel it MUST have been worth it.
    i think that art shouldn't be holed up in a museum and having more art and having it be available is good.

  28. I make stereoscopic images on my 3ds. If you guys would like to see them go to 3d colors look for solidnate. Also ghost in the shell stand alone complex talked about this subject and basically stated that traditional art is valuable in the sense that one cant make a perfect copy. In digital media one can. I also heard a good point from the artist that made Mutual Core:Bjork music video and he had made the point that traditional tools and technique will stay relatively the same, but in the case

  29. So I am going through all of your older episodes to catch up, and in trying to share some of the episodes on facebook (To further your awesome show), I keep getting errors about flash objects and pictures missing….

  30. right now there is a two minute commercial that I cannot skip on youtube between me and the video, and no matter how many times I refresh, it is always there. and about something I don't care about, at all, football. screw you youtube.

  31. Art is everything and everyone, it just lives more on the internet. Maybe that's because everyone and everything is mostly on the internet.

  32. I think that because our screens and cameras cannot 100% accurately depict real life scenes I think there is still a huge benefit to seeing art in person.

  33. the internet cannot replace the gallery. the fact that we can see any art by typing in a name to google dosent make that art garry irrelevant. one of the most important things aboute pating for instance is scale a rothko would look really nice on a postcard if it wasten 1m by 1.5m painting doesn't have the same effect unless it it seen in person. for instance the monalisa is horribly unimpressive in person due to its hype but in reality it is not much lager than the immages youve seen. a month ago  i saw a yeves kline pating in paris and i have seen it dozens of times in book but in person my perception was toalty changed becse the sheer size of it communicated feeling to me on a whole other level. the next thing is taht in person you can relly grasp an artis handing of his meidum with peit mondrian there is no way to truly understand the efort he puit into his compossion untuill you see the depth of the carks in the pain form the may times he plated over a singel work. for this reson we will continue to go to gallries for a long time to come

  34. I believe that internet art remains relevant, yet the feeling of going to an art gallery can not be replaced. While the art in the gallery is accessible by other means, viewing the works physically is far more satisfying.

  35. You can't capture a painting in a photograph. Ever seen your computer show gold? Or the color inside your yellow marker? It can't, because it's a grid of little red, green and blue lamps, hardly a complex color spectrum. When viewing art in a monitor, you're also losing depth (layers of paint), materials, light reflections, impressions of scale, overview, museology, context, etc…

  36. I think that the ability to see historical art on a screen supports art but doesn't replace the need to see art physically. Seeing a piece of art in real life is a completely different experience. Seeing art on a screen is seeing the art out of context. If you look at it on a screen (or even a book) you won't experience the original colors, the texture or even the size of the artwork. A common example is the Mona Lisa. No one imagines the most famous piece of art to be so small. I think that painting is overrated and shouldn't be Leonardo da Vinci's most famous artwork let alone the most famous painting (not that I have an alternative and I guess that comment was not relevant). I'm not saying that people should never look at paintings on the internet. I think that it is great that we can see a painting millions of miles away with a few clicks but don't mistake it as the same experience as seeing art in its original form. 

  37. One thing the Internet has over most art galleries is access. I have never been to the Louvre — because Paris is very far from New Hampshire, and also only open during the day  —  but I can see many of its exhibits online any time I want.

    Another is the ability to discover the talented non-famous. Thanks to the Internet, I discovered an artist who paints gorgeous images in a shack in Minnesota and puts them up for sale on Etsy. Now several of them decorate my office wall. This woman's work has appeared in galleries, but only locally, so without the Internet, I would never have been able to see them. And instead of paying a lot of money to view them on a wall in someone else's building, these paintings now enrich my life every day. BTW, her name is Jaime Best, and she's wonderful.

  38. The Internet is the greatest invention of the last 40 years. I know that sounds pompous and cliche, but it has clearly proved to be the single most informative, unifying and egalitarian force modern society has ever seen.

  39. I don't think that the internet is replacing the art gallery, it's accompanying it. As convenient as it is to look at a work on your computer screen, it's justified that looking at a real canvas or page which the artist originally used to work on with more genuine and authentic.

  40. I don't think it will replace it. I mean, this kind of conversations take place in almost every decade, people even used to think that they would never speak to another person's face because of the rising of telephones for domestic use! But it think this topic is still very interesting because it shows one use of the internet that helps expand our culture/vision of the world in a way it would have never been possible instead of the rather frivolous use we give it today. Again, i don't think it will replace it but they should work together enriching our lives.

  41. The internat had become a gallery of art cause the definition art it self is becoming larger and larger , and in the last decats digital art , an art that can expand beter in the internet without changing the suport that you are waching it on it still the same as the artist had made it , but the internet will never remplace the gallerys but it's a new kind of gallerys for a new kind of art ( it is not only for that art and gallerys is not only for the old kind of art ) gallerys wil allways exicete cause seeing some thing and seeing the photo of somthing is not the same .

  42. Man, I looked at some of the links and some have stopped several years ago or have been entirely discontinued. It is kind of sad to see how this art decays and yes I know that other internet art sites have popped up over the years but still how things like F.A.T have died due to legislation over the years is disheartening for the future of art.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *