Oh, and sorry about Disqus. I'll put that on the to-do list.
I guess I'd say more Wittgenstein than Whorf, but both of those ideas are pretty far abstracted from what I think is a very practical problem.
I see it as this: art that's harder for the average person to describe will show up less on the internet, so long as the internet is mostly based on descriptions written by average people. It will be slow to show up in search so long as search is mostly semantic (this is beginning to change with Tineye, and now Google's Search by Image). By comparison, it's relatively easy for me to type in "artist throwing cheeseburgers at people" and find Nate Hill, or "artist following people around" and get Vito Acconci.
I don't know what the end result of that is, but I do know that even as a professional art person I spend much more time online than in galleries, and I do know that it's worth noting that there's a filter applied there. The medium in which I look for (and at) art now privileges performance and video, and (comparatively) punishes abstraction.
I don't know that it matters too much what kind of abstraction, aside from wall-text details and technique, which offer a lot of easy-to-remember words. "Splatter" and "drip" are pretty easy, and you can probably find Manfred Mohr's work if you know you're looking for something made with a plotter. Shrug.
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation