If Art prizes are being awarded based on public online assessments, the main question is why? Why was the Artist’s given the title? Based on their concepts and ideation? Were they critically analysed by the public as a professional would have done? To others with no artistic education or experience, they might vote based on their preference or vote like “an art American Idol.” In Sarah Angel’s article, “The People’s Art” talks about the photographer who wins the prestigious Grange Prize by being chosen online by the public. It explores the topic of public online assessment with a question of their own: what is the future of audiences for art? According to the article: “Visitors today seek greater interaction. They want galleries to feel more accessible. They want more transparency—to know why curators say yes to one work and no to another”. It means that with the combination of online and offline voters, it constitutes an impressive rethinking of what an art prize can be expected of in the twenty-first century, although it is clear that not everyone gets it. Although there can be people who truly appreciate an artist’s work, evaluating a work through a public online assessment can limit an artist and their artistic skills and their creativity. There is also a possibility of rigged voting as well as taking away the authentic experience of seeing an artwork in real life that can put the credibility of both the artist and the art prizes at risk.
Technology can ‘introduce’ art to a broader audience but it can never replace the atmosphere of actually being at a live event, and that atmosphere is as much a part of the experience as the actual performance. Therefore, how can people vote for artworks online without ever seeing it in person? “Seeing the real thing is more important,” says AGO Director Matthew Teitelbaum (Page 6), “But you cannot say that what you do on Google Art and what technology allows you to access is not authentic.” Indeed, equating the real with the reproduced is one of the most critical debates in the art world in the decades to come. However, for me, an artist’s work should aspire to these heightened states of visual stimulation, rather than display itself as a form of entertainment or rely on extrinsic narratives, which other media can employ more readily such Instagram and Facebook. Looking at the art in person is an experience that the artist creates for the audience. Only looking at a reproduction lessons that experience of endorsement and taking away the credibility of the artist’s skill by limiting them to merely an image. If we were to forsake such opportunities to absorb ourselves in the art in this way, we would inevitably erode one of the more remarkable abilities of our species.
What is an Art prize? The point of an art prize is to reward and acknowledge those individuals for their actions and achievements. Arts prizes have become a kind of spectator sport, attracting considerable media speculation and discussion, and accompanied by organised betting. Essentially the introduction of the book, “The Economy of PRESTIGE” summarises the cultural phenomenon of the prize “cannot be understood strictly in terms of calculation and deal-making: generosity, celebration, love, play, community, are as real a part of the cultural prize as are marketing strategy and self-promotion.” In the field of art, it is often survival of the fittest. You are fighting for your work to be seen and heard, and if you believe in your voice and work, you must show it to the world. If I were to reinterpret this, the statement claims that the artist may have to betray their own values to sell art in general public. As they continue to choose artworks that lack an interesting and understandable concept despite there being other artworks that present the same level of technical execution along with an intriguingly solidified concept. An insert from an article warns of this problem as “the prize could favour artists whose works are conceptually straightforward and pleasing—art that people like, even if it’s not the best” (Angel, 2). This jeopardises artists of unique and new ideas as the public are not as open to accepting the uncommon or confronting thought-provoking artworks that require in-depth discussions. Discourage innovative designs that push the boundaries for creative thinking and explorative narratives. According to the introductory chapter found in… My narrower point is that we need to understand I am assuming that the art prize is the product of its media representations and the procedures and rules that constitute them. In short, the analysis of the art prize is the analysis of the creation of a ‘media event’.
Although I agree with the fact that to a point, the art prize is seen “as a particular kind of media event, one that is constructed through the actions of a variety of stakeholders and then deployed in the making and marketing of cultural artefacts.” However, when it comes to the process of judging and critiquing: Assessing art can be subjective that the decision you make will be simply a “matter of personal opinion” and hence unsupportable in any public forum. What I’m implying is that some people in public are working with a complete lack of evidence on which to justify their decisions. Based on popularity and sellable work, people with getting paid. The same principles that undergo assessment and review in any discipline are also the basis of judgements made in the arts. Experience and informed knowledge of any field increase a person’s ability to make these reasoned interpretations. Rather than a matter of personal opinion one should bring expertise and experience to the process of evaluation, and the resulting unanimity undergoes the objectivity of our decision-making. However, turning over that time-honoured granting process — or even part of that time-honoured process to the popular vote — can undermine that relationship.
Moreover, let us face it, the kind of democracy practised at the likes of Facebook and “American Idol”. That “voting” process is anything but a reflection of true affection or “popularity,” as all those votes prove. Deciding who deserves a check takes the work of dedicated professionals with integrity as their middle name. I would trust them, judges with experience, far more than any popularity contest rising from the public. It is art, not a popularity contest, not judging the artist but the art itself. The public may be driven to question the reliability of the voting process and even ignite distasteful projections towards the gallery for not taking the contest seriously enough.
Indeed, while it may not be subjective as there are people who truly appreciate an artist’s work, a majority vote could be based on personal preference. I argue that it is a popularity contest and you should promote your work. If you look at the history of art, you observe how the most popular forms trample the rest. However, with the public online assessments, an artist’s works can also be biasedly judged. While I do think art promotion is as important as creating the work, art prizes shouldn’t be judged by the public as the voting procedure can lose its credibility. There will also be a loss of credibility between the relationship between artist and audience. Hence, the consequences of free online assessed art prizes still remain as it constrains the creativity of artists, risks biased judgement, and minimises viewers’ experiences while jeopardising the credibility and success of the artist and the viewer
2019-2-17-1550443899