One thing that I find myself and other classmates talking about over and over is accessibility. Whether it’s accessibility for students with disabilities or accessibility for students that are lower income; it’s an issue that educators have to constantly consider for their classrooms. These two articles really discuss accessibility both in terms of having access to art via the internet and also being able to make art via “remixing”.
Since I’m writing this after our discussion, I perhaps have different views of the remixing article than I would have had before. The first quarter of this article is about remixed writing and focuses on blogs. I’m not sure how that ties into art. Can a blog be an art piece? I’m sure it can but the things this article are discussing don’t really discuss that. I guess it is discussing remix culture as a whole and how it applies all over the digital atmosphere. The idea of getting feedback on something is a topic worthy of discussing and that is an interesting aspect of posting art in digital forum. In any kind of blog, Instagram, or Flickr the option to have comments on images or posts is the default, you can turn them off on some of these but most people want to have feedback and can use it for either constructive criticism (the minority, in my opinion) or to develop a fanbase and popularity (the majority).
When the the remix article starts to talk about music and videos, the discussion gets more pertinent to my idea of what art can be. The author states that the remix artist, by choosing from many different sources, can make something more powerful or potent than the originals by combining them. I agree that that would be the most effective way to use remixing. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I can’t think of anyone that would be upset about a museum sharing it’s images with the public. It is truly beneficial for everyone in the world. However, according to the paper detailing the process behind the Rijksmuseum democratizing their collection, it is a lengthy and difficult process, and the thought of a museum not being able to profit anymore is apparently something that needs to be considered. A way they generate revenue is by having a user download a file in multiple sizes. The user can get a generously sized free image or a huge tiff for 40 euros. This is extremely smart, as anyone who really wanted to use the image for something detailed or big would have to buy the image, but a layperson or student could use the free file. This article also discusses the idea that the museum’s works were already reproduced unofficially elsewhere on the web in bad quality and that people who wanted to use them might as well have a good copy straight from the museum website. This offering made the bad quality copies drop away, which brings more viewers to the museum’s website.
Back Home