In all three articles you can tell that big debate going on is what the museum digital presence should be – what should they post, how should they post it, and how those publishings alter the museums relationship with the public. There is a general consensus that a museum’s digital presence has both positive and negative effects. One of the most important results of this is the public’s relationship to the art in the museum. The Art in America article Hromack and Giampietro emphasize the point that many publishing of images deters visitors from coming to the museum to see the work in person. They raise the question of “what does it mean for us to encounter an artist’s work for the first time via Facebook or Instagram or Vine?” This is a valid question – what does it mean for both the viewer and the museum when people choose to experience art through a mediated for only? How much is lost in this exchange, and are museums deterring their own patrons? After all, how likely are you to wait in line to see something that you can see for free and with no hassle from your living room?
I have had this exact experience with art, Jackson Pollock to be exact. We had to look up images of his paintings online after watching a brief documentary about how he creates them. The image of his work in digital format aren’t too great. For example:
That just looks like a lot of splatter on a tan background in the digital format. It wasn’t until years later that I saw a Pollock in person, and got to see the texture on the canvas that I had any appreciation for Pollock’s works at all. Digital formats can tell you nothing of texture, or scale which are frequently two of the most important parts of art (they are usually the “wow” factor, that wonder effect), as is depicted in the article with the example of Walker’s statue.
I agree that digital imagery leaves out some of the key physical and aesthetic aspects of artworks, which give a sense of resonance when experienced in real life. But I also think that digital platforms and images can provide a sense of resonance beyond what is sometimes possible in a museum space. Online spaces do not have the same constraints as physical museum spaces, thus contextual documents such as essays, articles, and photographs can all be linked to a specific work to give it a greater sense of resonance.
I think that the reason for such a debate is that how technology is applied needs thought of on a case by case basis. For some arts objects, a digital image won’t do it justice but for others, it can enhance the experience. I have worked with manuscripts before and sometimes being able to zoom in with a great level of clarity allows people to see details not possible in person. I do not think that there will ever be a definitive solution to whether technology does or does not belong in a museum, it is dependent on the situation and art piece at hand.
I agree that seeing the art for the first time via digital media definitely cannot substitute for a real life experience; but at the same time, I almost disagree with the statement that social media deters people from attending live. If anything, it should instill wonder and curiosity to go out and see these things for themselves, but maybe that’s just my personal attitude towards this. I also wonder if different social media platforms have different effects on people e.g. Vine as opposed to IG, etc.