Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
jim allison wrote:
This op must be a young fellow who is cluless about art. While many consumers don't want prints, paper prints, like sculpture and paintings will always be around. Yes, there is glass in art galleries,but they won't be throwing out the other media soon. People will always want to OWN art, and I, for one, would not care to live in such a sterile Brave New World, that you project to be our future.
chez wrote:
Yes, but art is just one small segment of the print market. Look at any home and you'll see way more portraits hanging around than artistic photos. Sure, art will still exist...but in a very small niche market.
Well photography is photography. What art there is to the images we produce is neither increased nor decreased via the display medium. Prints have limitations. Electronic displays have limitations. Either are suited to different environments - with overlap of course. If Corning indeed eventually comes up with a product which installs like wall-paper and is low cost, the walls it's installed on will probably not have printed media or paintings hung on them. But not all walls of all rooms in a house will be like that (I would hope). I for one don't expect the printed media market to shrink at all because of this. Just like electronic CRT devices actually increased the amount of paper used on the planet (by orders of magnitude I might add). And then just as now, people said it would kill the printing industries. It killed some forms of News distribution but more /changed the face of them/ than actually killed them. And in the process News and actually the entire printing-on-paper and printing in general, industry was massively diversified and localized in a way that probably couldn't or wouldn't have happened otherwise.
In the same way I don't ever see these interactive surfaces killing printed art media. If anything the marketeers will move in with services like one-touch purchase-printing and when John Q. Public sees an image on his glass wall he thinks his sister or wife might appreciate hanging in another room - boom there it is - printed by you and shipped to them next-day-air. For home users and such, these devices will remain a style or fashion choice along side their utilitarian aspects and will never /replace/ traditional art - I guess they will probably only serve to enhance traditional media markets by increasing distribution and exposure. Think about it. Have you sold any prints over the net? How were they advertised, selected, and paid for? Now imagine people didn't need to sit in front of a computer and /navigate/ in order to be exposed to your work. Imagine your images were being displayed at buss-stops, in malls, at the BB in supermarkets, in the interactive ad space of the wanted and FS section of those flexi-screen (digital paper) things you saw in the videos. Do you think that would increase or decrease the amount of people ordering prints from you? 
Also I think the OP chose the word "dead" for the title of this thread unwisely but I wouldn't go so far as to think him young and stupid for it as some others have suggested. By now we have all surely learned not to judge a thread by its title, right?
--
WAYCOOL wrote:
Back in the day a inexpensive poster of "Farrah Fawcett" was considered high art by most men and millions displayed them proudly.
And still do today, although it's no longer Farrah... Now it's a skate-punk hero, a band, game, or a movie poster!  And the number of people who have them on their walls has increased massively!
-- Just saying - in confirmation of what (I think) your point is... (we mostly define what art is on a personal/individual level.)
|
