After reading the short yet interesting article by Megan Graber, titled “The Most Expensive GIF of All Time’ is Being Sold for $5,800,” I was actually really surprised and amused by the GIF creator’s artist statement. I went into this reading blog thinking I was going to be commenting on the financial and aesthetic aspects of the “Balloon Dog Deflated,” however, Micheal Green’s artist statement was the centerpiece of this article for me. Of course, before I get into his statement, I will admit I’ve never truly understood the selling and financial side of digital art. Sure, animated movies and aspects of graphic design for specific people/companies definitely call for a price tag for their commissions, but something like a GIF or even NFTs never has made sense to me (at least for the price point of Green’s GIF and the ‘investment’ nature of NFTs). I think its hard to wrap my head around digital art being a commodity, when it is easily, efficiently, and usually legally reproduced or put on google images for everyone and their mother to see and use for their own endeavors. That being said, I think Green’s artist statement helped me better understand the financial pursuits of digital artists. I really enjoyed how he coined how the internet itself was a museum, and like CD’s and VCR tapes, brick and mortar museums are dying. And while I do necessarily agree with his opinion (I go to a museum every trip I take,) I can definitely see where he is coming from with the modernization of art and the growing need for technology and its advancements. Furthermore, I enjoyed his idea of these “changing of guards” in terms of new generations of artists coming forth, in which he believes that every artist goes off “the tools that represent their time on earth.” Although Green has not sold his GIF yet (well as of 2014…) I think the action of putting a price tag on something so easily reproduced is a commentary on the relationship with art and technology itself.
Comments