E-Marketing the Arts: The Rise of Social Networking in the Creative Community

In my previous post, I considered two alternative perspectives on the state of the artistic community, offering favorable assessments of the market under generally bleak circumstances. As these entries indicate, patronage of the arts is persevering even in desperate financial times. However, as large scale purchases decrease, auction houses and galleries have found it increasingly difficult to maintain profits. While several institutions have simply been forced into closure, even prominent establishments like Cristie's and Sotheby's have mandated layoffs and budget tightening. With current constraints on traditional art forums, online capabilities are thus become increasingly important in maintaining the industry's viability. Despite attempts by many arts organizations to support an online creative community, the most profitable outlets have proven to be larger sites that cater to a broad demographic. Social networking sites have enabled a growing number of artists to diversify and expand their consumer base, resulting in increased sales even as the global economy worsens. Though many artists have expressed hesitation concerning an online creative presence, tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Second Life are becoming exceedingly helpful in reaching audiences.

Most importantly, profile-based sites such as Facebook have enabled a wide array of artists and institutions to find commercial success. Not only does the site allow established artists to reach wider renown, but also provides aspiring professionals the opportunity to self-promote. Unlike smaller websites such as VisualProgression and ArtMetal that are targeted specifically at creative individuals, social networking has allowed artists to reach diverse audiences at a phenomenal rate. Facebook alone has over 175 million active users, 70% of which live outside the United States. Contrary to public opinion, over half of Facebook subscribers are also outside of college and “the fastest growing demographic is those 35 and older.” As such, Facebook provides artists with a means of reaching both international and experienced buyers – those most likely to patronize the arts. With such astounding statistics, such sites have changed the face of the art market, leveling the playing field for even the most amateur of artists. With the current financial downturn, even larger institutions are exploring the new technology, using event pages in an effort to expand diminished audiences. The Walker Art Center is currently among the museums participating in the Facebook application ArtShare (see above right), a feature which allows users to display exhibited works on personal profile pages.

More recently, Twitter has also gained a following, similarly providing artists with a new marketing platform and allowing for easier and quicker updates. As with Facebook, the social networking site caters to a broad target audience, enabling artists to develop a large customer base and prompt wider recognition. Marketing that once required gallery sponsorship is now readily available for personal use. The growing importance of Twitter in the artistic community is reflected in the many published articles addressing online marketing as well as in its growth rate of 1382% over the last year. Prominent artists such as Yoko Ono, An Xiao and Doc Pop currently use the site along with institutions like the Saatchi Gallery and The Tate. According to Ruth Jamieson of The Guardian, Twitter has "democratised" the art community, providing followers of the site access to a once elite industry. In doing so, the website has proven beneficial to both audiences and artists, introducing users to a vast array of creative individual previously unfamiliar to them. With such beneficial new outlets at artists’ disposal, the use of such sites has become increasingly necessary in maintaining relevance and a competitive edge. As demand increases, failure to engage with these sites is to deny the new reality of the art market, an industry largely reliant on internet sales.

However, the usefulness of social networking extends beyond simply turning profits. Sites such as Second Life have provided artists with a new outlet to exert their creative energy. Within the virtual reality, individuals have managed to maintain steady incomes through the creation and sales of online works. Reflecting the growing importance of Second Life, the New York Times recently published an article featuring eight of the most prominent artists on the site, including Filthy Fluno and AM Radio. While both professional artists in "real life," they only rose to prominence through Second Life marketing. Artists Eva and Franco Mattes have also capitalized on the site's success, using their art to “blur the lines between [the] real and virtual.” Last year, the couple created the “13 Most Beautiful Avatars,” a collection of online creations that were displayed at the Postmasters Gallery in New York, translating Second Life sales into “real life” sales. However, for those interested in a purely online experience, the website is also home to hundreds of galleries, many of which are home to frequent openings and exhibitions (see left). Artists are able to use these opportunities to promote personal websites or sell their digital artworks. Though many of the over 220 galleries on Second Life are struggling, several artists have reached commercial success through the site. Dancoyote Antonelli consistently sells his works for 100,000 Lindens (US$375) and has sold an estimated five million Lindens worth of art (US$18,730.) While most artists opt to sell their works in galleries, the site also holds auctions in which art frequently fetches higher prices from collectors.

Nonetheless, while such online capabilities have repeatedly proven their success, many artists are hesitant to embrace the new technology. Despite the success of Facebook and Twitter among the 50 and older, there is a common misconception that experienced patrons “don’t do social networking.” For an industry largely reliant on older audiences, this has deterred many artists from creating an online presence. Other artists have avoided the sites, feeling the constant updates to be “mundane” and “hyperactive,” detracting from the art itself and becoming a source of “too much distraction.” However, in a time when traditional art forums are struggling, these tools have become exceptionally important for the individual artist and signal a new direction in the art market. While many analysts have declared the “death of art,” social networking sites prove the industry's ability to persevere under difficult circumstances. Even as galleries and auction houses continue to fail, Facebook, Twitter and Second Life are flourishing, providing artists with a direct connection with audiences. In failing to address these new sites, artists are excluding a major source of income and an opportunity to reach a wide audience with minimal effort. To exclude such sites from any marketing strategy is not only to deny one of the most profitable aspects of the art market, but to ignore the desires of an increasingly technologically savvy public. While social networking is often mistakenly viewed as trivial, these large sites have aided in saving the mid-level art market, providing artists with free and global exposure.

Resuscitating the Arts: Perspectives on the "Death" of Visual Culture

In a previous post, I examined the impact of the financial collapse on the creative community, arguing for increased government support and continued maintenance of private funding. As earlier stated, the economic downturn has proved devastating for the art market , threatening not only community based organizations but publicly funded institutions as well. Just last week the Metropolitan Opera was forced to place pair of Marc Chagall murals (see below, right) up as collateral on an existing loan. With unprecedented closures and thousands of forced layoffs, financial analysts and art historical commentators are predicting the end of the market’s viability. However, despite the predictability of depleted funds, cultural institutions are struggling to come to terms with the "death of art." While the current issues facing the creative community are clear, the longterm impact of the financial crisis is uncertain. Many are claiming the complete dissolution of the market while others have pointed to a decline in artistic output. Recent trends, however, seem to suggest early signs of recovery. This week, in a testament to the industry's perseverance, I consider alternative perspectives on the state of art. In “Is Art Dead? Is This the End?”, David Eubanks discusses the current climate of the creative enterprise, suggesting the market will adapt to new realities rather than destruct entirely. Similarly, Laura Meli’s “Back to the Future: The Armory Show 2009” investigates positive developments in the art community, namely focusing on New York's recent Armory Show. My responses to both of these posts are provided below and may be found at David Eubank’s On Art and the NY Art Beat Blog respectively.

"Is Art Dead? Is This the End?"
Comment:

Your post provides a unique and encouraging outlook on the art market's current state of affairs. The need to promote strong community support is vital in maintaining the industry's viability and profitability. However, while I agree that the future of the “Big Art Market” is under threat, designating value as “representational” or even “conceptual” seems a bit pre-emptive. Though certainly a valid point, the present devaluing of art is likely a temporary symptom of the financial crisis rather than a permanent development. Just last week, the Armory Show proved the perseverance of the market, attracting better than expected crowds and surprising sales. Declaring the so-called “Big Art Market” obsolete is thus premature. As your entry indicates, community interest is based on so-called “Real Market” values, superceding the momentary highs and lows of the stock exchange. However, your post ignores the “Real Market's” dependence on the “Big Art Market.” While visual culture provides educational value and holds community significance, artists rely on their patrons to survive - a group controlled by the “Big Art Market.” Thus, with both markets struggling, it is necessary to promote both community organizations and larger institutions.  Focusing your entry entirely on co-ops and internet outlets undermines the importance publicly funded organizations play in the art world. With over 5.7 million workers and a financial impact of $166.2 billion, it is vital communities work to preserve struggling establishments on every level.  

While I certainly agree increased support of community-based initiatives is necessary, expansion in the midst of a recession is, unfortunately, improbable. With the decline of private donations, the successful formation of new public agencies is simply implausible without government assistance. Your entry suggests the need to cater to patrons of the arts, yet you fail to consider that this financial base is diminishing. Without monetary support, how do you propose communities acquire the necessary start-up capital to form these organizations ? In solely discussing the economics of the industry, your post also does not take into account the impact the recession has had on artistic ouptut.  As I am sure you believe, the power of art moves beyond pure economics.  Thus, I am curious to hear your thoughts concerning the changing content of art. Recent articles suggest the need to develop new modes of representation and the demand to incorporate new subject matter to reflect current realities. An artist yourself, do you think the content of art will be impacted by the financial collapse? In looking at your assessment as well as similar posts from other authors, it seems that emerging trends have mistakenly been declared as finite changes in the art market.  While these assessments may be limiting, I do, however, appreciate a more positive stance on an improving situation.


"Back to the Future: The Armory Show 2009"
Comment:

In the current financial crisis, it is encouraging to read about a relatively positive development in the art world. Since many of the Armory Show's commentators have emphasized the diminished crowds and smaller sales, your initial focus on the galleries' prospective buyers and “heavily trafficked” aisles provides much needed assurance. It seems that despite the stress of the economic downturn, earnings were better than expected . Though the DOW plunged 7000 points last week, profits are projected to exceed 2008's total of $8.5 million in art sold. Organizers were undeterred by dismal projections, enhancing the  “size and scope” of the exhibition this year, introducing a new section on modern art and expanding from 160 to 177 galleries (see left).  In light of this, it seems particularly relevant to be discussing the Armory Show as it was initially created as a result of an economic downturn.  In 1994, when the economy was similarly strained, several dealers came up with the idea as a means of more easily promoting multiple galleries and drawing increased media and community attention.  The show's subsequent success led to an annual tradition, proving profitable even in our current crisis.

As such, it seems your article simplifies the issue by focusing primarily on statistical data.  Yes, the show made less than average sales, but you fail to consider that the show exceeded expectations.  Several galleries were able to use the opportunity to advertise unsold works from previous exhibitions while others strategized by displaying less expensive works.  Thus, despite the disappointing statistics, by all accounts, many are viewing the show as a sign of the market's continued viability.  According to New York gallerists, sales have increased in the past few weeks, suggesting that confidence is returning among patrons.  The show also provided increased exposure to individual artists - those suffering most from the financial collapse - and compensated for months of disappointing profits.  At a time when emerging artists are struggling most, this is enough to declare the show a success.  While I appreciate your decision to include both positive and negative results, your entry seems to take a relatively ambivalent and impersonal stance to the news.  What do you believe the importance of the Armory Show to be?  Do you think the show's relative success is symptomatic of a recovering market or is it simply a singular triumph in a still dire situation?  Despite the "slow days" and lack of "6 figure sales, I would argue that the show has instilled much needed confidence in the art market and provided profits for both galleries and artists.  With such a potentially significant impact, it seems disingenuous to reduce its significance to meaningless data.  

Appropriating the Past: A Look at Art and Ownership in an Unstable Market

Issues of ownership have long plagued the artistic community, affecting everyone from artists to their patrons, museums to news organizations. A dilemma first aggravated by reckless explorers of the colonial era, governments have struggled to adequately address the subsequent confusion over proprietary claims. While the body of work included in the Art and Cultural Property Law aims at regulating artistic ownership, it has failed to fully address more contemporary concerns. Just last month, the UN released a report discussing the devastating impact of climate change on tropical nations’ artistic archives. According to the statement, "much of the world's cultural heritage" is made of biodegradable materials which in "prolonged warmth and dampness, attract mould, micro-organisms and insects, causing decay and disintegration." The global temperature increase associated with climate change is thus proving disastrous for national museums and archives across the globe. As such, the report reintroduces the necessity of expanding and clarifying existing ownership laws as impoverished nations clamor to save their cultural legacies (see right). When preservation is at stake, however, difficulties historically arise as to accepted levels of multinational involvement. Not surprisingly, host nations often feel their claims at ownership are threatened when they are unable to properly maintain their archives. Establishing guidelines consequently becomes exceptionally difficult and is often mishandled. The primary concern of the creative community must thus be to ensure the safety and perseverance of art through the establishment of finite laws.

With regards to issues of climate change, this is best facilitated by encouraging involvement not only from the international community but within the host nation itself. Many of the affected countries have sought to preserve their nation’s visual culture but simply lack the financial capacity to do so. The recent financial collapse has only exacerbated an already pressing issue, threatening to destroy some of the world’s greatest artistic treasures. Politics aside, the obligation of ensuring artistic preservation now rests in international hands. Current laws, however, leave the legality of such actions vague. While ensuring the preservation of existing artifacts is vital to the future of art history, the issue prompts necessary discussion concerning ownership laws and the need for further clarification. As it is, current laws attempt at establishing rightful ownership, but fail at providing absolute directives. Proprietary rights are thus left to be determined by subjective juries, the nonspecific dictates failing to standardize proceedings and leaving room for interpretation.

This need for further explication is not only relevant to issues of preservation, but extends into matters of artist’s rights and personal patronage as well. In a lawsuit symptomatic of this ambiguity, Florida resident Peter Sachs has found himself embroiled in a legal battle with Deutsches Historisches Museum. According to court papers, his father’s massive poster collection, which was seized by the Gestapo in 1938, now sits in the Berlin museum. Estimated collectively at $5.8 million, each of the 4250 posters is clearly stamped with his father's seal though only one of them has been legally returned.  Judge Norbert Stobbe's asserts that the return of the poster “establishes Sachs as the rightful owner of the collection,” but the future of the remaining works is still in question. While it is likely Sachs will receive the majority of the collection, several of the posters, including the famed "Die Blonde Venus", will remain in the museum's archives. Laws concerning Nazi era art have thus been largely left unsettled. The 1998 Roundtable Discussion on Nazi-Looted Art sought to apply “international pressure” on owners and institutions of plundered works, but many of the issues raised in the proceedings failed to reach conclusion. Most significantly, many claimaints "found it difficult or impossible to lodge claims in some countries in which art, returned at the end of the war, was nationalized.” Even for those capable of filing suits, a substantial number of owners are unable to afford the exorbitant legal fees required to take these institutions to court. Until such laws are further expanded upon, many of the injustices served under the Holocaust will continue to go unaddressed and the legality of the art market will be undermined.

This failure to properly establish property laws not only threatens legal claims of ownership, but also jeopardizes the rights of artists and their expressive freedom. Just last month, controversy erupted over the Associated Press’ decision to sue artist Shepard Fairey over the modeling of his enigmatic Obama poster after an AP photograph (see left). Though the company attempted to file suit, claiming the poster was in violation of the Fair Use Doctrine, Fairey preemptively asked a federal judge to declare him "protected from copyright infringement claims.” The artist argued that he adequately altered the portrait, “transforming” the image to “create a powerful new meaning and… a radically different message that has no analogue to the photograph.” The failure of the United State’s copyright law to properly clarify the terms of “fair use” has resulted in the heated exchange between the two parties and has ultimately prompted the photographer to get involved. Against the negative handling of Fairey, photographer Mannie Garcia has challenged the AP's ownership claims, asserting that “at no time did [he] sign the [company's] freelance contract.” As such, the problem is twofold. First, the United States has failed to adequately explain the parameters of “fair use,” a subjective term which currently rests on the personal determinations of judges. Second, while the purpose of such laws is meant to maintain the integrity of the artist, the photographer approves of Fairey’s adaptation of the image. Not only is artistic expression at stake, but the laws meant to protect artists are thus being subverted for monetary gain. In a society ridden with unnecessary lawsuits, artistic freedom will continue to be threatened until proprietary laws are clarified and standardized.

Ultimately, the purpose of these statutes is to best represent the interests of artists, their works and their patrons. Ownership must no longer be determined by the partial judgements of courts but by reasonable and clear dicta. Preserving the integrity and safety of visual culture requires government involvement and sponsorship, a matter which demands extension beyond the interests of the art world. Maintaining artistic projects not only nurtures visual education and culture, but imparts societies with a means of better understanding human interaction and experience. In revisiting laws of art preservation, the international community is provided with a unique opportunity to create more concrete proprietary statutes. Artworks looted over 70 years ago have yet to be returned to their rightful owners, and new achievements are questioned for their legality. Parameters of artistic expression are being unfairly established and innumerable treasures are now threatened. As the safety and legitimacy of art is challenged, now is the time for new laws to better define and reflect the challenges of our time. Until then, the future of visual culture will be left in the hands of a select few, subjective rulings dictating the legality and preservation of the multinational art market.