I was interviewed for this article, it looks like my comments were used well and relatively in context.
That being said I definitely don't fit into the tech + art audience that was being defined in this article. It seems to be implied that there is a large amount of naïveté regarding art amongst techies, which is very true for the most part, and they're just looking to burn their piles of tech money on something pretty (which is certainly debatable). I study art and art history in my spare time, with a particular focus on Japanese art and Ukiyo-e: http://ukiyo-e.org/ This seems to be very rare in the tech world with few technical people being interested in the humanities, let alone art and art history.
One point I mentioned to the reporter, but was left off, was that almost all art I collect is either antique (and then acquired from auction or dealer) or if it's from a living/contemporary artist then from the artist directly. I've never met a more disdainful group of people then art dealers, especially contemporary art dealers.
It's especially surprising that the article didn't mention Artsy (http://artsy.net) considering that it's right in NYC and it's the perfect intersection of the contemporary art world and tech. They are much more connected to contemporary art galleries and dealers and are working very hard to get people connected to the art they're interested in - which seems to be largely fixing the issue(s) outlined in the article.
There is a lot of interesting work happening in tech + art right now in NYC and I'm excited to even be in the outskirts. Cool projects like:
As a museum technologist and someone who works daily harnessing technology to help make collection objects and exhibitions more accessible and open, I found this article to be a bit skewed. Granted, the thrust was on personal collecting habits of those in the tech sector, but I find the arts/tech community to be vibrant, passionate and invested.
I absolutely agree - for those that are in the realm it's a great time to be involved. I'd also argue that the intersection of art + tech is still, very much, a hyper-niche in the larger tech world (which is largely what this article is portraying, for better or worse). It's unfortunate that so much of "art" is conflated with "high-net-worth individuals being told what art to buy from dealers" which is a minute aspect of the art world to focus on.
As a video game developer in NYC (I also participated in Art Hack Day: God Mode that you mentioned above, I dug your project!), I agree with you that "art" is being conflated with "high-net-worth individuals being told what art to buy from dealers."
I also agree with everyone that there are many technologists very interested in art, and maybe even a good percentage who understand this specific art world that the article talks about and how it works. The problem, however, is that the ones who are most likely to understand and perhaps even appreciate this art world are also the least likely to have any money--they are more akin to fellow "starving artists" running around Bushwick.
Though most programmers I know say they aren't in it for the money, and mostly I think this is true, in the Art-Tech intersection specifically there are many who can hack who don't actually make that much money from it.
You hit the nail on the head. Many new artists go hand in hand with the tech world. I buy lots of unique pieces/prints. But I have yet to step foot into an established art gallery. I really can't stand that crowd.
I'm a designer, but I've never been into traditional art because I grew up knowing that digital pieces could be so much more than traditional media. I think a lot of techies probably feel the same way; they're waiting for artists to better familiarize themselves with the tools we use because that's where the impressive stuff happens.
And since the individual post about it didn't get any love here the other day, the Flat Surface Shader project (http://wagerfield.github.com/flat-surface-shader/) is a great example of open-source pieces that others can fork and build off of that I hope we see a lot more of (in addition to designers and developers working on these types of projects together to begin with).
I loved this article, especially “I want to meet the artists and hear their stories about why they make what they make. I don’t want to go to the parties.”
I started Gertrude (www.gertrude.co) a few months ago in NYC exactly on this thought. Instead of using technology to commodify art via an online marketplace, I am more interested in using technology to match collectors and artists so they can meet at intimate, real life one-hour events (we call them Salons, like one by Gertrude Stein).
It would be cool to meet, we are in Brooklyn too!
Kenneth (twitter @kschlenker)
I'll append Rhizome to this list (thought they were mentioned in the article as they're doing 7on7). They've been at the forefront 'art/tech', 'new media art', 'digital art' et al since 1996. http://rhizome.org
The Ukiyo-e link is good. Should have imagined that a community will arise around pretty much anything created by mankind.
I am a photographer in my spare time and I find the blend of the rigors of programming and the flow of wandering the streets just shooting randomly so opposite and yet so similar.
(OT) Ukiyo-e site is really impressive, I wasn't aware that there were so many pieces available online, let alone collected and organized so nicely on one place. Thanks a lot for your work!
deviantART has a reputation for being the most lowbrow of the popular art sharing sites on the Internet. It's all comics, bad photography, and fanart. No serious artist would put their work up there. Flickr is slightly more respected. Tumblr has the most respect among "real artists". Good coverage on the intersection between art and tech happens at http://rhizome.org/ & http://we-make-money-not-art.com/.
Did you go see the Gutai exhibit at the Guggenheim? It's really worth your time. I don't know a whole lot about abstract expressionism, but I really, really enjoyed it.
That being said I definitely don't fit into the tech + art audience that was being defined in this article. It seems to be implied that there is a large amount of naïveté regarding art amongst techies, which is very true for the most part, and they're just looking to burn their piles of tech money on something pretty (which is certainly debatable). I study art and art history in my spare time, with a particular focus on Japanese art and Ukiyo-e: http://ukiyo-e.org/ This seems to be very rare in the tech world with few technical people being interested in the humanities, let alone art and art history.
One point I mentioned to the reporter, but was left off, was that almost all art I collect is either antique (and then acquired from auction or dealer) or if it's from a living/contemporary artist then from the artist directly. I've never met a more disdainful group of people then art dealers, especially contemporary art dealers.
It's especially surprising that the article didn't mention Artsy (http://artsy.net) considering that it's right in NYC and it's the perfect intersection of the contemporary art world and tech. They are much more connected to contemporary art galleries and dealers and are working very hard to get people connected to the art they're interested in - which seems to be largely fixing the issue(s) outlined in the article.
There is a lot of interesting work happening in tech + art right now in NYC and I'm excited to even be in the outskirts. Cool projects like:
http://www.eyebeam.org/ http://arthackday.net/god_mode/ http://www.nypl.org/collections/labs http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/ Not to mention many of the projects here: http://caa2013.thatcamp.org/