Response to "Fluidities and Oppositions among Curators, Filter Feeders, and Future Artists"

        In Anne-Marie Schleiner’s, “Fluidities and Oppositions among Curators, Filter Feeders, and Future Artists,” Schleiner discusses how the different aspects of art have changed over time, and how they will continue to change through out the future.  As art was once only available to the elite who studied under masterful artists, art has now become open to everyone thanks to the development of the internet.  And along with that came the changes of where art is created (once only in the finest of studios, now it can be made anywhere from a bedroom to a lab), where art is displayed (gallery vs. an on-line space), who has the ability to control where it is placed, and who has the ability to claim authorship for the work at hand.  All of these changes have supported the an outreach to those who share common interests.  No longer do people have to travel to the nearest (or perhaps not so near) gallery in order to enjoy the art they love with the people they share this love in common with. One quote that particularly caught my eye read, “Public space has shifted to the web and engages audiences located geographically distant from one other but perhaps with hobbies and tastes closer than those shared by the average museum patron,” (Schleiner).  With the easy navigation of the internet, art buffs of different sorts can sit back in the comfort of their own home and navigate through website upon website, even creating their own “favorites” list with the mere click of the mouse.  

        One piece of work that really fascinated me was http://turbulence.org/Works/stalkingsocial/facetbook/v4/wall.php.  With Facebook so present, I found this work interesting and relatable in an almost humorous way.  As Filardi put it ... “While everyone performs for everyone in particular, let us psychoanalyze the face-specimen in the matrix dressed as a book.”  I found this quite amusing.  It is true, Facebook is a virtual place people go to impress their hundreds of “friends” .. and for what? To be virtually “cool”? Just as people debate whether virtual/net art is real, we have to wonder, is every one of your friends on Facebook as “real” as their profile displays them to be? Perhaps digital art and the virtual place an artist decides to display them is not “real” in the physical sense.  You can not travel there and examen this area where art is displayed, because of course it is made up of different codes and located on your computer screen.  However, does Facebook not do the same thing?  Many people find Facebook interactions to be just as “real” as connecting with someone in person.  However, another dilemma that arises is that of privacy and ownership.  Again, this is similar to the issues of privacy and ownership of art and where it can be displayed.  Because of filter feeders and curators net art has the ability to travel from website to website becoming more important on some and eventually being led to the back burners of others .. this all happens with the simple act of the people “in charge”.  Ownership even becomes lost in translation, as some argue that as long as it is on their site, they have the ability to claim ownership.  Similarly, Facebook owns everyones information who has made an account.  They are allowed to sell your information to other companies (including Google) who eventually gain ownership of entire virtual lives.  From Google you can browse the web for content on “Amelia Towle” for instance, and any information that has any sort of connection to my name will show up for thousands to see.  Clicking through links will lead my “followers” anywhere, just as net art has the ability to do .. original ownership or not.