Why don't artists have websites?
Why don't visual artists have websites? you see plenty of musicians, poets etc. with websites, but scarcely visual artists. Any time that I was researching artists for uni projects you'd constantly be taken by Google to artcyclopedia, or to art galleries in which the artist has exhibited. Antony Gormley has one, so there are exceptions. But really, if you are a visual artist you are made to feel that it is too self indulgent to have a website about your art. Is it because it is creating to much of an 'image' for yourself and that's not cool....
?
Any answers...anybody?
2 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
I think it depends on the artist doesn't it - I know artists who work in computer-based mediums tend to have their own sites (people who work in flash animation, graphic designers etc.) As well as not wanting to be overly image conscious, I think it probably does have a lot to do with not wanting to be associated with something that doesn't really sit well with what you could call 'real' experience of art. But that's all very hippy and I'm only speculating.
I have noticed that even the 'big name' artists don't have sites though - there isn't a David Hockney site for example... I think a website can begin to look a little like a branding exercise, especially if the artist isn't the webmaster, and especially when they're dead (http://www.milesdavis.com http://www.bobmarley.com - okay, they're musicians but you get the idea.) Maybe then it's a good thing that some artists have so far managed to resist the cyber-branding exercise or maybe they just keep they're credibility and let someone else do their internet representation for them - White Cube have a very flashy site that represents a large number of contemporary artists http://www.whitecube.com .
This is a really simple but effective and not at all self indulgent artist's site http://www.mollycrabapple.com Maybe worth a look for some ideas.
Post a Comment
<< Home