Looks like a different sort of introspection than expected at most museums. I think the natural progression is to some ridiculous meta exhibit built around one of these selfy installations, where onlookers can reflect on the spectacle and come up with something like the curators response:
“We’re all flabbergasted, to be frank. I wonder, what are they even trying to say? ‘I am here Instagramming?’"
I think their response is less than pretentious. I like how she says "I don't know if it's art" clearly acknowledging between the lines that there is no logical conclusion on the horizon. If she claimed it "was art" that would be pretentious. Instead, I think her response invites the question and maintains an innocence that is deserved.
I definitely agree, the part that struck a chord with me was
"...everyone's just trying to get instagrams. You know, like is that what art's becoming, is like what you're experiencing and sending out into the world? I don't know. I just think it's interesting and that's the reality of the world we live in right now."
I think if you look at this with pessimism or loathing for what art has become you're really missing the point. These artists seemed pretty genuine about how they were experimenting with involving the audience as a part of the installation, or building things based around the fact that the audience is going to involve themselves whether you like it or not.
The last time I was in Los Angeles, I found a building with a pink wall and a constant stream of pretty girls with photographer "friend" taking photos of them. I thought it was quite odd at the time. Apart from being a very well painted wall, I could not see any other photogenic reason why these people would want their photo taken there. But I guess it was one of these selfie-factories. If not particularly intended to be.
It's a Paul Smith store and it wasn't intentional (though it has since been embraced for what it is by the brand), per a similar piece last month in the Ringer "Can Real Life Compete With an Instagram Playground?":
> Late one Wednesday morning in July, a crowd of tourists began to form on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles. Their location of interest was the Paul Smith store, but not what was in it. The large modernist building, with its sunny corner location, single rectangular window, and striking bubblegum-pink painted wall, happens to make an excellent portrait backdrop.
> Though the menswear designer has never commented on the phenomenon, it’s safe to say that he did not imagine his California-pink shoebox would one day function as the site for thousands of amateur photo shoots. (Especially since it does not appear to have improved sales at his store.) Nevertheless, the Paul Smith brand appears to have recognized its power as a free marketing opportunity.
Want to be clear I am not criticizing this article as derivative of The Ringer piece. There are a lot of articles about purposefully Instagramable places, especially the 'museum' of Ice Cream.
this shit is so depressing to me. the amount of narcissism in my generation is unreal. pretty girls are basically mini celebrities now, with 500+ likes on every post they make, and a constant group of admirers telling her how attractive she is non-stop on the internet. there’s no way that doesn’t affect someone’s ego.
i get that this phenomenon was around before the internet, but i cant help but think social media made it a million times worse.
I don't know that we really have enough data for that claim. It's only been around for 7 years, and social media in general hasn't been that prevelant for much longer.
None the less it will be interesting to see how these situations play out. The smart instagram celebrities are likely using the fame to make connections and legitimize their fame some how. Others will probably fade away as their current target markets grow up and shift interests.
I imagine its less narcissism and more hedonism; both the instagramer and -ee are just indulging on very basic, mindless kinds of imagery. An instantaneously pretty sight, and that's about it.
But the main trouble is this shit is incredibly boring
This could be a great thing for art in the long run. Contemporary Art museums like MOMA (mentioned in the video) have already been catering to these crowds, albeit unadmittedly. I would not be surprised if this observation planted the see for this idea. The result of art museums doing such has been an atrocity for serious art and art criticism, the latter of which has ceased to exist. Art has may other problems but acknowledging and putting a label on this phenomenon could force a light onto what these galleries and museums have become.
16 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] threadI cringed when I read this.
https://www.pantone.com/color-of-the-year-2016
"...everyone's just trying to get instagrams. You know, like is that what art's becoming, is like what you're experiencing and sending out into the world? I don't know. I just think it's interesting and that's the reality of the world we live in right now."
I think if you look at this with pessimism or loathing for what art has become you're really missing the point. These artists seemed pretty genuine about how they were experimenting with involving the audience as a part of the installation, or building things based around the fact that the audience is going to involve themselves whether you like it or not.
> Late one Wednesday morning in July, a crowd of tourists began to form on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles. Their location of interest was the Paul Smith store, but not what was in it. The large modernist building, with its sunny corner location, single rectangular window, and striking bubblegum-pink painted wall, happens to make an excellent portrait backdrop.
> Though the menswear designer has never commented on the phenomenon, it’s safe to say that he did not imagine his California-pink shoebox would one day function as the site for thousands of amateur photo shoots. (Especially since it does not appear to have improved sales at his store.) Nevertheless, the Paul Smith brand appears to have recognized its power as a free marketing opportunity.
Source: https://www.theringer.com/tech/2017/8/9/16110424/instagram-p...
Want to be clear I am not criticizing this article as derivative of The Ringer piece. There are a lot of articles about purposefully Instagramable places, especially the 'museum' of Ice Cream.
i get that this phenomenon was around before the internet, but i cant help but think social media made it a million times worse.
It only lasts a few years, at most..
None the less it will be interesting to see how these situations play out. The smart instagram celebrities are likely using the fame to make connections and legitimize their fame some how. Others will probably fade away as their current target markets grow up and shift interests.
But the main trouble is this shit is incredibly boring