Okay, maybe I’m looking at this in a sort of biased way given that I myself am a millennial, but was anyone else getting a “I’m against the digitization of art because these kids nowadays don’t understand MY non-digital experience with it” vibe from Holland Cotter’s article, “Tuning Out Digital Buzz, for an Intimate Communion with Art?”
I feel that the argument of baby boomers vs. millennials is pretty prominent in pop culture, especially when we’re talking about how things were back in the good ol’ days without Facebook or Twitter, or Skype or the Chase Mobile app. This argument goes further into the museum world; that is, the ever-so talked about critiques of this generation being so obsessed with digital technology, that we supposedly overlook the significance of artwork and digitally-independent museum experiences. Cotter herself explains, “Like libraries, they were places where the volume was low, the energy slow, the technology unobtrusive. You came to them to look, to think and, in the days before museums became the prime social spaces they are now, to be alone in a small, like-minded crowd.” She recalls moments of true resonance from her experience of museums, stating that “the only way you would retain most of what you saw was by spending time in the galleries and imprinting things on your brain.” But then Cotter goes on to explain the downfalls of technology in museum spaces, particularly, when people rely on digital supplements as the only way to even experience a museum.
But Cotter also brings up examples that work in favor of #TeamDigital. And I quote, “The basic idea is simple: More people should be able to see more art. Who would argue?” It goes without saying that every human being reserves the right of accessibility. Though there may be some parts of the museum experience that can be “missing,” isn’t the fact that making such well-known, generally agreed upon, and culturally significant works open to viewing and learning to all a huge leap for museums? With the reputation of being historically exclusive to those of higher class, or the ones who have the privilege of calling themselves true art appreciators or experts, it’s definitely a plus. Cotter describes the Museum of Modern Art’s direction into encouraging photographs of the objects, as “in general, MoMA is encouraging the picture-taking impulse” for means of sharing and reproducing on the Internet. The museum’s Instagram account is reflective of this culture of having museum-goers either post about their experiences, or allow for followers both around the world and in that sort of interest field to see these experiences and compare it to their own; or rather, even inspire an experience for those who cannot attend the physical space. Reproduction through this Instagram account makes pieces from the museum accessible in another digital delivery method, which can lead to people wanting to visit the MoMA’s website, or search up artists and objects online for their own interests. Reproduction is just that: a representation of an object that is otherwise remote or unable to be physically experienced by everyone, so Cotter’s point of digital accessibility being inaccurate of a work is somewhat skewed.
(The MoMA’s Instagram account encourages patrons to take photos and tag them to be featured.)
In a previous post, I mentioned that scale is usually hard to decipher in digital reproductions. Yet sometimes, aspects of art such as scale or texture is still relatively easy to replicate with today’s technology, even though Cotter disagrees. But ince technology is still improving, who’s to say that we’re missing out on details if we’ve yet to discover or create a method to completely capture them? It’s like how human beings have only explored 2% of the earth’s oceans; anything is possible, and with further digital advancements, we’re getting closer to more possibilities and opportunities of engagement and recording. So why make things less accessible, just because a few minor things might be missing? Accessibility via internet and digital means is such an improvement from the once closed-off space of musuems, so Cotter having to say negative things about not being able to physically experience exhibits and objects is just a little contradictory to her approval of accessibility.
And the further we distance ourselves from art itself, from being in front of it with all filters gone, life is what we lose — art’s and ours.
Anyway, maybe I’m just a bit insulted at Cotter’s viewpoint on accessibility. I mean, admittedly, I do love my digital gadgets, and can see why Cotter would assume this generation of being utterly sucked into them. But at the same time, here’s what I have to say to her: have some faith! It’s a different time and a different meaning of museums that this generation lives in. Art is and can be everywhere, and through digital means, art is not only preserved and reproduced, but even transformed and interpreted in many, many ways. Good or bad, that depends on the eye of the patron. But what matters in the grand scheme of things, is that we can look at works old and new, physical or digital, and think to ourselves, wow, this is art, this is culture, this is what x means to y, this is us, and not have to worry about if our experiences are accurate or need to be validated by a traditional way of thinking.
I really appreciate how passionate you are in this post to overturn the arguments that Cotter speaks of. I actually wrote on this same article, and in a way somewhat agreed with Cotter — in a sense that seeing the work in real life is a different experience entirely from the digital (however, not necessarily better — simply, different). Thus, I can entirely agree with the points that you provide as well, that the digital experience allows museums to expand their audiences so that every gets the opportunity (yet, I feel that it is SO important to note that these are representations! We have to consider the artists as well, because the artist may have intended the viewer to experience the piece in real life. But some viewers may end up assuming that an Instagram representation is the end all, and not fully realizing the potential of the artist’s vision).