Google Chrome Exposure Tarnished by Brand Names

A few months ago I wrote a post lambasting Google for soliciting artist work without financial compensation.  The situation, to recap, was that Google approached well-known illustrators to design nifty new artist skins for the Google Chrome browser.  The catch: Google offered to compensate the artists with only exposure.  In my mind, the offense was as follows:

Google chose artists because they were highly-recognizable and then was unwilling to financially compensate them what Google obviously is aware that they are worth. In so doing, Google sent the message that artists, no matter how successful, are not worth paying.  Thus, the undervaluing of the arts (against which artists constantly struggle) was publicly perpetuated by a wealthy company that could have afforded to pay for artists' work.

A few weeks ago the new Google Chrome skins launched--and the result is underwhelming at best.  Google apparently regards all its "Artists" as brands--and vice-versa--and assembled a page featuring everything from sports cars to architects, from haute couture to hip-hop bands.  The Artist Themes library reads like an advertising pull-out in a magazine: smaller, niche artists vie for attention against the top-billed Porsche, American Apparel,  Mariah Carey, in addition to other such easily-recognized names as Donna Karan, Marc Ecko, Wes Craven, Ocean Pacific and Candies (among others).  Each theme is presented with a button navigating to a one- or two-sentence blurb about the artist/brand/company (including, in many cases, a link to the artist's store where the user can purchase products)  and most of the skins feature a brand logo somewhere in the skin itself.  Artists who are less commercial and have less name-recognition are lost in the shadow of the BIGBRANDNAMES. So what exposure, exactly, is Google offering its skin-designing artists whose names don't ring an immediate bell with the General Public?  I hope that they are receiving more interest from people who might not otherwise have known their art, and ultimately generating more sales and commissioned work.  I hope that they find they are growing their audience and that people unfamiliar with their work before Google Chrome now are interested in what the artist is producing.

In truth, however, I suspect that one of two things is happening:  they are overshadowed by the highly-recognizable brands, or reach an audience that was already aware of their work.  If Google had not piled these artists into a motley assortment of brands, designers, products, and artists, I believe that those artists with more specialized popularity would have received greater exposure, and thereby reached a broader audience of new followers and potential financial supporters for their work.  (Though of course, I may be erroneously assuming that these artists WANT to add new fans to their audience--perhaps they don't.)

Operating under the assumption that each designer wants to increase site traffic and popularity, reaching Chrome users who might have otherwise been unfamiliar with their work, I would recommend that Google redesign the Themes page.  Arranging the contributors in alphabetical order, for a start, would give a sense of order and artist equity.  To take it one step further, I think that calling the page an "Artist Gallery" is a misnomer, and Google would have done better to segment its collection of skins into tabs like "Music," "Fashion," etc, thereby bringing more attention to each skin--and reach people who may be more interested in certain artistic genres.  Additionally, Google could have routed skin downloads through the artists' bio page by default, truly offering the opportunity to generate traffic to the individual (or company) site.

I am interested to know about the arrangement between companies such as Porsche and Google--were there really no financial negotiations?  Did the designer of the skin get paid by Porsche, instead?  I reached out to a couple of the participating artists to learn about their experience working with Google, and whether or not Google ended up financially compensating them after all--but at this time none has responded.  So, Chrome Theme designers, if you read this I'd love to have you weigh in on the matter.

And, as always, I encourage anyone reading to share your thoughts.

Technology as the Art

“Molotov Alva and His Search for the Creator,” by Douglas Gayeton, a film made using machinima. Technology and the Arts...it's what we focus on in this blog, on this website, and in our offices. Dictionary.com defines technology first as "the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science."

Today, however, I would like to liberate “technology” from its seemingly ubiquitous linkage with other, more concrete and easily definable terms, and examine technology as art.   Technology is about creation, it is creative in its very definition, though it is too often regarded by artist-types as out of our realm of right-brained comprehension. This may be the reason that we consider art and technology, as if those two elements naturally remain separate.  When the first maths-based technology was utilized to create visual imagery, the products were considered not art because they were so often created by scientists.  (That relationship is explored in this piece by Lewis Dartnell.)  In this day and age, however, it is evident that technology can, in fact, be the medium in which the art is created. It can be the palette, the orchestra, the voice, the film.

It is a difficult distinction to make: at what point do we consider technology as an artistic medium?  Eight-track is a technology.  As is infrared film.   For our purposes I will be considering technology as digital, computerized.   I am interested to hear thoughts, because it can be a very difficult determination to make--at what point does technology actually comprise the art rather than merely facilitate it?  Is this a distinction that needs to be made? Is technology ever truly a medium, and if so, does the technology we discuss here necessarily happen with computers? And if so, does the art need to happen on a coding level to be considered created in the medium of technology? If the art can be created without a computer (for example, audio reel-to-reel), can we classify it as relying on (our definition of) technology?

So, without further ado, a few examples of what I would consider technology as the medium in which the below art is produced. (Additionally, the piece at the top of this post.)

There’s digital rotoscoping, mainstreamed in the 2006 feature film ”A Scanner Darkly," which combines digital filmmaking with a computerized version of traditional rotoscoping.

The Rhizome "Tiny Sketch" competition set a 200-character limit for coding to design tiny sketches. This is not unusual, and there are countless areas where code is used to create visual art. It is more clearly obvious in many cases, but is also easily taken for granted with continued computer usage, as it is code that gives us the graphics that we see as computer users.

Toplap, a musical group that performs live by writing code in real-time to produce music. (Video courtesy of the BBC on YouTube.)

Virtual composer Emily Howell, an independently-creating creation of David Cope's.

Watch Information Hunter Gatherer @ Electric Art in Entertainment Videos |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com “Information Hunter Gatherer” by Stephen Belovarich

Streaming the Arts: ClassicalTV as the past, present and future

I’m a little bit of an opera nut. While other people my age are psyched for the release of Saw VI, I'm anxiously awaiting the Met HD broadcast of Tosca.That’s why I was so excited to find out about ClassicalTV, which makes full-length performances available for free. No more 10-minute-max YouTube clips—just grab a glass of wine, sit back, and watch all 4 hours of Tristan und Isolde! Launched in March of this year, ClassicalTV features opera, ballet, jazz, dance, classical music, and theatre performances. The 1100-hour library includes performances from such classical heavyweights as the Metropolitan Opera, La Scala, Royal Shakespeare Company, and London's Royal Opera House, as well as recitals and concerts from notable performers like Emma Kirby, Felicity Lott and Ramon Vargas and conductors like Kurt Masur, Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Herbert von Karajan. The site also features blogs and informative articles about the videos and the arts in general.

Here's an example of one of their free offerings, a production of Gluck's Orphee et Eurydice at Paris' Theatre du Chatelet (after the opening advertisement):

One of the most fascinating things about the company’s story is its evolution. Its founding and re-emergence chronicles the evolution of streaming video itself. Founder Chris Hunt, a British film and television producer, launched the original site (then named “Online Classics”) in 2000, in the day of the 56k modem and sluggish download times, when the internet was still nicknamed "the information superhighway”.  Hunt describes the site’s early successes and struggles:

Interestingly, even though we had a terribly inadequate offering – users experienced frozen pictures and inadequate audio, among other issues – by the end of the year we had 750,000 people watching our streams.  That was a phenomenal number for the year 2000, since the reach of the internet was much less then.  However, we had to give up at a certain point and agree to wait for the technology and the infrastructure of the web to mature.

So, the demand was there in the early 2000's, but the technology could not yet produce the optimal experience. It makes me wonder how many start-ups were launched at time when the technology and the number of people on the internet simply did not make the business viable, and how many of those start-ups would be viable now. About three years ago, Hunt took up the idea again and after careful market research, decided to launch the site. Pam Meyer, Senior Vice-President of Business Development, thinks performing arts audiences are ready for the site now that they “finally have the technical capability to access long form video content , and are truly tired of watching short form clips of laughing babies and of dogs pretending they are cats on YouTube.”

Many of today's internet media companies face the challenge of how to turn a profit when there is so much free content out there. ClassicalTV handles this cleverly, charging no membership fee and offering the majority of the performances on the site for free, charging only the time it takes to watch a commercial at the beginning of the performance. The site also carries pay-per-view premium performances like Ballet Russes' The Rite of Spring, Royal Shakespeare Company's King Lear and many Met titles. Price range from $5-$10 and are available to the viewer 72 hours after purchase.

In October, six months after the initial launch, there are still a few hitches. The Musicals and Theatre section are underdeveloped, although plans are underway to expand them. For arts organizations interested in having their works shown on ClassicalTV, Meyer had this to say:

We are interested in working with established arts organizations that have the rights to distribute completed videos of their performances. They can contact us through info@ClassicalTv.com if they have a completed and rights-cleared catalogue of video that is television quality. We rarely look at single one-off programs, unless they have exceptionally well known performers in them that we know our audience would enjoy.

As it is, new free and pay-per-view programs are released each week. But ClassicalTV is looking ahead. ClassicalTV perceives arts audiences demanding more from their online experiences. When asked what audiences will be demanding five years down the line, Meyer said:

I can tell you that we already find that performing arts enthusiasts demand high quality, a large library to choose from and are watching longer and longer formats. In the near future I think the introduction of web ready TV sets will be disruptive and one of many "leapfrog" experiences where the consumer leaps right over their PC as a common platform to the TV. Imagine being able to watch, in your living room, a streaming Met Opera in HD with your family on your TV. As well, we expect to see a lot of high end material hitting the mobile phones which are just starting to stream long form material.

Prepare ye the way for the digital season brochure

The season brochure, that bastion of quadruple-proofed specialty paper that brings in a cache of new subscribers every year, has officially gone digital. And not just a PDF with an embedded link to the box office page. Oh no. With sound clips. And conductor interviews. As you may have gathered, I was recently delighted to discover London Symphony Orchestra's online season brochure. When I first saw it, it struck me that this is probably what symphony orchestras have dreamed of doing since the inception of the season brochure—that in the first season brochure meeting, the marketers were essentially thinking, “how can we put the experience of our symphony on paper?”

Here it is—not on paper. And with all the interactivity that an orchestra marketer dreams about.

It’s sleek, wonderfully interactive and will certainly grab the reader’s attention… but will it sell tickets? That’s the new question marketers must ask themselves with every shiny new social media tool that comes along. An online season brochure is something a customer must seek out on the organization website. (Isn’t getting them there half the battle anyway?) The traditional season brochure comes to them through the carefully orchestrated efforts of the marketing department. So, which version will result in more ticket sales? And more importantly, will the time and effort spent on the digital brochure be worth it?

So here's a funny question to ask on a technology blog: Is direct mail dying? There's more and more evidence that it's not. When I began my career in arts marketing, I thought this was a rhetorical question; my initial impulse was to say yes, letters, postcards, etc. are going the way of the newspaper. But I quickly learned the usefulness of direct mail: the spike in season ticket sales after the renewal mailing went out, the power of a reminder postcard for “pick 3” subscribers, and more. People still respond to direct mail, at least, arts patrons do. Maybe they just like the feel of the specialty paper. But maybe it’s something more.

In this technology-driven multitasking world, it all comes down to one question: What will keep our patrons' attention?

Many arts orgs still send renewals/season brochures through the mail, as they have for years. Arts marketers have conditioned them to expect a thick packet or glossy pamphlet in the early part of the year with an incentive deadline. But what if we changed that? If we sent an email directing them online to look at a brochure and/or renew online, would it be as successful? I would think not. They won't have a context for it, and so many of those emails won't be read.

According to The Non-Profit Times, if a non-profit arts org sends an email, it very optimistically has a 20% chance of being opened. Maybe 5% of total recipients will actually click through to see your wonderful interactive creation. (These stats are older, so if it follows the current trend, we can safely assume it will be lower.) Or, to put it from one individual's perspective, here’s how it works in my inbox: the message enters the daily deluge of emails that I may or may not tag to read. If I have time within the first day I receive it, I read it; otherwise, it slowly makes its way to the netherworld of "older" emails in the inbox, never to be heard from again. I find myself becoming increasingly immune to email appeals, and it seems to be proportionate to the number and length of emails sent by the organization. Same thing with social media "white-noise"--the more I have to read, the less I want to read.

On the other hand, if the arts org sends a renewal packet or season brochure in the mail, the situation is different. If they have been a subscriber for a while, they know what it is and what to do. The single-ticket buyer or first-year subscriber might think the brochure looks interesting and they'll read it or put it in the mail pile. The difference is, people eventually go through their mail pile, and will probably do so sooner than cleaning out their inbox, when the brochure is still somewhat relevant. Furthermore, so many commercial organizations have gone paperless that, at least for me, it's a treat to get something in the mail that's not a bill, especially if it's cool and artsy-looking. I'm less likely to throw it in the trash.

Bottom line: A paper brochure is something that sticks around. Something that a single ticket buyer can grab at the theatre to see what's coming up. Something arts marketers can hand out at arts fairs to people who don't even know the organization exists. It is for these reasons that I believe that the season brochure will not go completely paperless for a very long time.

Feedback, please! I’m interested to hear your experiences with online brochures and renewals.

(sidenote: Sophie, the online multimedia book publishing software featured at the National Summit for Arts Journalism Friday, releases version 2.0 next Thursday. It might be a tool worth looking in for those considering creating a digital season brochure. There are also several videos of other interesting mergings of technology and arts journalism/publishing on the summit's website.)

Filtering for Information: The Value in Streamlining Online Presence

We talk a lot about online identity and managing the way in which the world receives you. But what about the way that you receive the world? Establishing and fostering connections and relationships necessitates that channels of information and communication be open. Once you open the door a little, however, the information that once trickled through can quickly become a deluge.

The ideal online presence develops awareness and support for your organization.  You can communicate with people near and far, and hope to transfer your online relationships into strong real-world bonds.  You want a blog that incites conversation and commentary, a Twitter or Facebook following that generates real-life audience, and virtual relationships that are mutually beneficial, creatively stimulating, and further your organization's mission. While building a substantive online presence, however, you may accumulate a lot of clutter that impedes your efforts (and not even realize it). I was surprised to find myself in this position. Once invigorated, I was suddenly overwhelmed by my virtual life. Useful information was lost among irrelevant chatter, and I had unconsciously begun tuning out everything. I went from eager and active online to quiet and uninvolved; I unconsciously stopped acknowledging Twitter or RSS notifications on my cell phone, filed away more newsletters than I read, and was a member of myriad services and sites that I had tested out, found unhelpful or redundant, and abandoned--without cancelling membership.

If you find yourself growing sluggish and disenchanted with your organization's social networking and online communication presence, consider some of the elements that I used to structure my interaction overhaul.

Contacts: Whose input do you value? How do you know this person--virtually or personally, in a business context or as a friend? Do you receive regular updates from them, and are these updates useful? Do they receive regular updates from you, and if so, do they engage? It's ok to set some people free, but do use caution so as to avoid offending anyone.

Social Networking Accounts: Do you use only the accounts on which you are registered? Do you have profiles that are inactive that you should delete? Do you have multiple profiles on the same site (e.g. your organization's Twitter and your personal Twitter)? If so, do you make careful distinction between the two in your interactions, and do you separate your contacts accordingly? Do you remain engaged equally on each, or do you swing between letting your organization account fall silent as you become more chatty on your personal account, and vice versa? If you do not have separate profiles and accounts, are you losing important information among your friends' weekend updates and baby pictures?

Email and Reader: How much spam do you receive at the email account you use for your organization? How many "relevant" newsletters, updates, etc. do you receive but never read? Do you have folders for different subjects, contacts, organizations, and so forth? Do you have a "get-to-it-later" folder that you never get to? Does your reader have dozens of feeds in it, of which you actually read only a fraction? Is there a chance that you will miss something important by deleting some of these feeds? Where do you find your most useful information, and what is making that process most difficult?

It was a surprisingly difficult task, and one on which I am still working, but it has made me feel like my online activity is more streamlined and efficient, my attention is more focused, and the information I now receive through these channels is proportionately more relevant and applicable than before. It is worth remembering that your online activities are an extension of your offline activities, and just as valuable to manage and streamline.

Why Net Neutrality is an Arts Advocacy Issue

I teach a course on “Cultural Policy and Advocacy in the US” each spring for CMU’s Master of Arts Management program.  As I begin prepping for the upcoming spring semester, I find it intriguing that the issue of “net neutrality” has not gained much buzz within the arts advocacy community.  So let’s take a look at what net neutrality is and how the issue of net neutrality impacts the arts. So what is net neutrality?  Here’s a brief breakdown of the issue from Public Knowledge, a Washington DC based public interest group working to defend the public’s rights in the emerging digital culture:

Okay, but why should arts advocates care about net neutrality?

In the last decade, we have seen an explosion in the use of the Internet to create art, promote the arts, advocate for the arts, build community through the arts, and more.  Our sector’s ability to participate in the Web 2.0 cultural shift is due in large part to our ability to access any tool hosted on the Internet with the same ease as any other Web user.  Here are just a few examples of how this neutral access has fostered evolution within the arts community :

• Artists have been able to choose from a wide array of online tools for distributing their work and reaching new audiences.
• Artists have explored the use of the Internet as an artistic medium resulting in the genre of art known as net art.
• Artists and arts organizations have leveraged the use of social media and social networking to further engage audiences before, during and after traditional performances and exhibitions.

Let’s say for example that a theatre company pays Comcast for access to the Internet.  The theatre also has a nonprofit channel on YouTube where they post video interviews with playwrights, directors, actors, designers, etc.  The theatre has successfully used these videos as promotional tools to raise interest in upcoming productions.  What happens if Comcast decides to prohibit the theatre from accessing YouTube because Comcast is launching a video sharing site that competes directly with YouTube?  Suddenly, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is determining which online tools you may or may not use to pursue your arts organization’s goals and mission.

Does the idea that your Internet Service Provider would prohibit you from accessing certain sites sound preposterous?  It’s not.  On September 21, FCC Chaiman Julius Genachowski presented a speech at the Brookings Institute in which he states, “We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content.”

During last month’s National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC) conference, Craig Aaron from Free Press laid it out on the line for the audience, “[The federal government is] going to decide whether or not the Internet remains public and free.”  Does that sound alarmist?  It’s not.

In yesterday’s speech, Genachowski went on to state, “While my goals are clear -- to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform that promotes innovation, investment, competition, and users’ interests -- our path to implementing them is not pre-determined. I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven. Anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will. We will hold a number of public workshops and, of course, use the Internet and other new media tools to facilitate participation. Today we’ve launched a new website, www.openinternet.gov, to kick off discussion of the issues I’ve been talking about. We encourage everyone to visit the site and contribute to the process.”

While this is a wonderful step towards ensuring net neutrality for the United States, we would be foolish to believe that the results of this process are a given.  A stunning statistic that Craig Aaron shared with the NAMAC conference last month is that the telecommunications field currently has 500 lobbyists in Washington, DC.  That is nearly one lobbyist for each member of the House and Senate.  You better believe that those 500 lobbyists are advocating for FCC policies that will allow their telecommunications employers to gain more financially advantageous control of the Internet and consumer usage.

The number of net neutrality lobbyists in Washington, DC is very minor in comparison to the army of 500 telecommunications lobbyists.  That’s why it is so important for us to join the national discussion regarding this issue and add it to our list of arts advocacy priorities.

Here are some easy things you can do today to help ensure net neutrality within the United States:

1. Send a brief message to your Congressional representative asking them to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458).
2. Contact Americans for the Arts and encourage them to add a net neutrality issue brief to the Congressional Arts Handbook that will be distributed during the 2010 Arts Advocacy Day event.
3. Engage in the public discussion on www.openinternet.gov.

The Future of Arts Journalism is Here... Maybe

Worried about your local arts critics being cut? How about the impending demise of your local paper? Don’t worry; the future is here! Last week the USC Annenberg School for Communication announced five projects that will present at The National Summit on Arts Journalism. The School put out an open call for projects that represent the future of arts journalism. The five winning projects will be announced at the conference on October 2 and another five made the cut to present:

• Sophie: A new authoring tool for multimedia developed by the Institute for Multimedia Literacy that suggests new possibilities for presenting critical response.
• The Indianapolis Museum of Art: With its Art Babble and Dashboard, the IMA is an example of a cultural institution extending its reach into areas that have traditionally been the province of journalism.
• InstantEncore.com: An example of an aggregator attempting to gather up everything about an art form (in this case classical music) and making it accessible in one place.
• NPR Music: An example of a traditional big media company that is reinventing itself across platforms. NPR Music blurs the lines between journalism, curation, presenting and producing.
• Gazette Communications, Cedar Rapids Iowa: An example of a local media company trying to reinvent the idea of what it considers news and how it might be gathered and presented to a local community.

I, for one, find it incredibly encouraging that journalists are finding new paths to write about the arts in the face of the layoffs and budget cuts. As the newspaper industry struggles, the first cost-cutting measures always seem to involve pulling more things from the wire and less local reporting.  Many of us in the arts industry have felt the burn from the epidemic of local arts critic firings from major papers, or conversion to a part-time or freelance status. In turn, people find it less satisfying to read the paper as these local writers are cut and circulation decreases further as more people choose to go online to read wire reporting rather than pay for it in paper form. In an effort to save themselves, it seems as though the papers are cutting the very thing that makes them a viable business model.

So how does this decrease in arts journalism affect your local arts organizations? Arts orgs lose out in two major ways: 1) One of their advertising mainstays becomes less effective as less potential performance /exhibit-goers see the orgs' ad in print and 2) as more critics are cut from newspaper payrolls, coverage of arts events is decreased. Since reviews and articles are typically a great revenue generator, arts orgs find themselves hurting for objective reporting and distribution that their own blog doesn’t quite cover. But through the Summit, the search is on for the new model of profitability in this brave new paperless, everything-free-and-now world.

However, the Summit is tellingly vague on what that could mean. Especially interesting was the note about viable business models on the USC site:

"We had noted on the submission form that we were interested in viable business models. Admittedly, the definition of what constitutes a business model these days is unclear. Strictly speaking, an operation that relies on donated labor and sweat equity has yet to find a sustainable business model. A project that relies solely on philanthropic contributions also has no business model in a strict sense. What we're looking for, therefore, is not so much a commercial business plan but some indications of long-term operational viability."

I’d like to echo that question above-- what is a viable business model anymore? The situation with newspapers has gotten so desperate, some are saying non-profit status is the way to go.  But companies like Facebook are relying more on “ownership” of the social media market to determine their company’s value, rather than real revenue.  So what hope does that leave these start-ups? Can they hope to go national, or international? It seems like a near-impossible task to take “ownership” of the information of thousands of arts organizations. Unlike many other forms of journalism, arts journalism seems confined to being primarily local, because of the limitations of a performance or an exhibit. To report on a play, the writer has to be at a theatre at a specific time. There’s not really a good way to get around that. Because of this, many of the projects are confined to a specific city or state. The national sites face the additional problem of collecting these local voices into one comprehensive site (InstantEncore seems to do an impressive job with this).

No matter which sector of the arts you work in, this is definitely an area to keep an eye on. On October 2, you can stream a satellite summit live and participate via text or Twitter if you contact summitinfo@najp.org or register here.

A Social Network Apart

Last week Ning announced its new platform for apps. If you are unfamiliar with Ning, it's a service that allows users to create new social networking sites. And, as the white noise generated by the rapidly growing mass of internet users threatens to overpower the individual voice, this may be just the change that an organization needs to break out of the Facebook Group Box. Where is your target audience, and how can your organization stand out when everything that seems most popular is very formulaic? Twitter? Facebook? LinkedIn? Somewhere else? Can you really tell how effective it is, or is your voice getting lost with all the others chattering away on those networks?

As I grow weary of the same-old same-old, I am finding Ning to be very refreshing. It does, however, pose its unique challenges.

The great thing about Ning is that it is customizable, interesting--all the personality of a website with all of the interactivity of a social network! It's like Wordpress, but with members in a community at large. It feels more encouraging, urging members to communicate with one another without as much moderation.

There are downsides, though. A Ning site is one more thing to maintain, and one more place that your audience (fans/followers) has to go. They must be cultivated more actively because the Ning community is not as widespread as that of Facebook. And, if your "people" are hanging out on Twitter or Facebook, do they want to join another community? Will they be less likely to interact because they are already consumed with their activities on the sites that Everyone Else is on?

I am on Ning, and am beginning to delve into the vast array of social networks afforded by my free membership. I find it takes a little more attention and investment than my Facebook time, but I also think that my Ning social networking experience is more varied and engaging. I keep thinking of ways that organizations, artists, could bond together by region on a social network, sharing upcoming events, sharing audiences, and generally cross-pollinating. I'd love to hear about your thoughts and experiences.

Technology in the Museum: Turning Visitors On or Off to Art?

Photo caption on Flickr: "There was a queue waiting to photograph this little Dali painting." Photo by moirabot.

On the Technology in the Arts LinkedIn group a member, referencing this blog post, asked: "Will Tech Engage or Distract a Museum Visit?"

This simple question led me down a rabbit-hole of tangential questions and topics (internal vs. external technology, technology for information vs. dialogue, and so forth) that made it impossible for me to compose a post that contained any rhyme or reason. And so I return to that most basic question here.

Technology: does it engage or distract the visitor? A friend of mine remarked, "I hate cameras for daily documentation. I think cameras detract from the authenticity of an experience, because you filter that experience through a lens." Certainly, I have photographs of experiences that I was a step removed from because I was so concerned with DOCUMENTING events that I didn't participate as fully as I could have. The flip side is that I have proof that indeed, I was there, it was awesome, and now I own it--forever.

This "ownership" issue arises when we debate photography policies in a museum. Often the photographers are people who take pride in having the experience, and want to have something by which to remember, share, and "keep" it. But as my friend said, in many cases they are likely removed from the immediacy of the art by the act of taking photos. Of course, the experience to them could be less about the art than it is about the "been-there-done-that" element of going to the museum, but is it fair to judge that person as being irreverent, or "missing the point?" At least they were there, and cared enough to take a picture, right?

Alternately, there is technology that is provided by some museums for the visitor to utilize. This technology is arguably nothing more than updated versions of the visitor's guidebook, later the VHS playing in the corner of a gallery, showing a documentary (available for purchase in the gift shop!) about an artist, or the walking audio-handsets. In some places a visitor may use his iPhone to scan a barcode and learn more information about a given piece. In others there are iPods set up that visitors can use to view a short movie about a work. And, of course, the curious smartphone user might use his own technology to visit wikipedia while standing in front of a piece. I argue that, in so doing, that visitor distills the experience of art into something that requires explanation, rather than a communication to be received by the viewer without others' interpretation.  Of course, I also argue that that sense of curiosity shows a degree of interest on some level, and should not be condemned.

Technology removes the necessity for personal, visceral interpretation of a piece; as quickly as a viewer can form an impression he can access a wealth of information that competes with (or "legitimizes") his instinctive understanding. While I am a testament to the fact that background information can completely sway the experience of viewing a certain piece, and I have grown to love certain pieces because of what I have later learned about the artist, historical context, and so forth, I don't know that I think the museum experience should necessarily be a lesson ABOUT the art.

Shouldn't the learning be a supplement to the going? I think about the symphony, or ballet, or opera, or theater--the audience may have some information in their program to lend insight into plot, composer, musicians, and so forth, but I would be surprised if I were surrounded by audience members simultaneously listening to a recording that said, "Now, this movement here represents..."

By techologizing the experience of visual art, are we pandering to a society that wants experience for the sake of having done it, wants to know what to think without forming a decision, that needs to have as much information as possible in as little time as possible? Are we leading people to experience art the same way they experience a trip: interpreted by GPS rather than orienting themselves in their world, figuring it out from a map, appreciating the journey?

Or are we addressing the fact that museums are expected by many to be intimidating places, off-putting and cold, sterile and quiet, where disliking something makes the viewer feel as if he just doesn't "get it?" Is technology the antidote, a way to inject the familiarly contemporary into an institution that is perceived as unchanging and never-aging?  Are we introducing a new way to experience art, and it fair to value one experience above another?

Addendum: The Brooklyn Museum's blog post about successful and unsuccessful uses of technology in the museum.

Tech Planning for Arts Managers: A Nuts and Bolts Webinar on Implementing Technology at Your Organization

On September 2nd Brad Stephenson, host of the popular monthly Technology in the Arts podcast, will lead a new webinar entitled ”Technology Planning for Arts Managers”. Designed to meet the needs of today’s arts managers, this workshop will focus on ways in which arts managers can use technology to best meet their missions and goals. Stephenson, the former Director of Projects and Marketing for the Center of Arts Management and Technology, worked closely with numerous organizations who wanted to find the best technological tools to improve their efficiency.  He "helped these organizations with a number of things, including the evaluation of technology vendors, the design and development of web-based marketing and development tools and the selection of software and hardware products."

Organizations commonly make some mistakes that actually impede the organization/technology synergy.  Too often Stephenson witnessed organizations either failing to align their technology with strategic plan, or worse, failing to develop a strategic plan at all.  Without a plan, there is no way to guide technological decisions in a way that will best serve an organization.  Additionally, organizations often failed to do research--such as calling similar organizations to get thoughts on the tech tools that were of most use to them.

Stephenson strongly believes that an organization that fails to plan for technology is "committing a major arts management sin," one which may compromise the organization's mission and unwisely drain resources: "Everyone on staff doesn't get an iPhone just because they're cool."  Stephenson has designed this workshop to coach organizations through the process of integrating technology into an organization's operations.  "Tech projects are really no different from other projects within an organization.  You still use the same basic project management approach to building a new website as you would producing a new play.  One of the best ways to start any new tech planning process or technology project is to ensure that you have buy-in from everyone on your staff."  Meeting resistance?  Stephenson will discuss ways to address such resistance during the September 2 webinar.

In today’s climate it is necessary for arts managers to understand technology and its application within their organizations. While it’s easy to say “integrate technology into your organization,” in practice it can be overwhelming. This workshop provides a step-by-step examination of an effective technology planning process, coupled with an overview of the major technology concepts with which arts managers should be comfortable. Participants will gain an understanding of three key concepts:

1. Creating a technology plan for your organization or project 2. Analyzing your current environment to make efficient use of existing technology and effectively target resources 3. Making the right technology choices through proven evaluation methods

To register for the webinar, and for more information, please visit the link below. Technology Planning for Arts Managers September 2, 2009 2:00pm – 3:30pm Eastern Register today for $25.00