RSS Feed
So proclaims The Guardian’s Jonathan Jones, which seems odd to me. Seriously? I’m trying to think of counterexamples, but I’m coming up with nothing. There’s the theory that Shakespeare’s plays may have been actually composed by a group of people, but as that’s only a theory, I’d be interested in hearing some better-documented examples of group-made art.
In his article “Not everyone can be an artist,” Jones takes a look at the rise of interactive and democratized artwork in the digital age. He says:
Some forms of interactivity are obviously good for art, as they are good for society. The more democratically ideas and information are shared, the more accessible art will be. [...] So democracy is great – except when it shapes the actual work of art. I do not believe a great work of art has ever been created by communal consensus, let alone by multiple editors. There will never be a wiki-masterpiece. This is because art, if it has any value at all, is the product of deep and often rationally incommunicable perceptions, and to try and explain or share those perceptions in a communally created artwork will negotiate and re-edit them to banality.
Participatory art is a denial of talent. It panders to a cosy lie, that everyone is equally able to create worthwhile art. What chance have we of nurturing those rare wonders in our midst, the born artists, if we claim this infantile right to put on a badge that says “artist”?
I think it’s a little premature to begin making claims about how true crowdsourced artwork will fail, as this new art from is only in its infancy (See also: “Why the Internet will fail” article from 1995–d’oh). Neil Gaiman and the BBC’s crowdsourced Twitter audiobook last fall wasn’t an enormous success in turning out a high-quality piece of literature, but it’s helped to kindle the recent interest in crowdsourced art; I imagine Gaiman and the BBC’s project will be only one of many large-scale collaborative art projects we’ll be seeing in the coming months/years. And maybe someone will come along soon and find a way to make crowdsourced art a bit more palatable.
Wild predictions aside, I think Jones has some valid points, and also some invalid ones. Yes, a crowdsourced work of art that attempts to please all artists involved could very well end up flat and unremarkable. And yes, as much it pains me to say it, some people really do have the talent to create more “worthwhile” art than others. But isn’t it the nature — better, intent — of most art to reflect upon some aspect of the human condition? And so shouldn’t an art installation, or a painting, or a novel, or a screenplay, or whatever, be enhanced by the input of additional artists, each with their unique thoughts and feelings about the human experience? Shouldn’t the work of art become more complex, intricate, intellectual?
I tend to believe that two heads are better than one, three are better than two, etc. But maybe that adage just doesn’t apply to art — after all, there’s a reason why nearly all the great artists, writers, film directors, etc have worked alone. But I’m interested to see what happens with crowdsourced art. I’m hoping, as a new medium, it’ll be successful in a way collaborative projects in other media haven’t been.
Do you agree with Jones, or do you think crowdsourced art stands a chance? I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts in the comments.
no film director works alone!
I guess you could say it was a committee who selected the standard books of the bible. Regardless of what you believe, you have to acknowledge the staying power of that book.
The counterpoint to Jones quote is a line from Jacques Barzun, who pointed out in From Dawn to Decadence that there are few examples of artists who worked in isolation and created better art because of it.
Creative expression benefits from exchange with others, and can rarely be completed without assistance and encouragement. (Although too many cooks can spoil the soup, too.)
I agree about the benefits of working with others vs too many cooks–I suppose crowdsourced work would be more successful if it found a balance between those two points.
Okay, just because you don’t work by committee doesn’t mean you work in a vacuum.
Good writing is writing that has passed through the fine comb of a good editor, has been read out loud to a close friend or lover, and has stood the test of time measured in increments of telling your friends about it and seeing whether or not they still find it interesting.
If you read that Jones story to the end he doesn’t diss collaboration per se; his real target is wiki-art, in other words the kind of thing that anyone with an internet connection can contribute to. I can see that while this works for an encyclopedia – collecting, categorizing and linking a set of knowledge – creating an artwork is completely different. Of course artists collaborate all the time, but they limit their groups to experts with specific skills (in camera work, or acting, or book editing to take a few examples).
It’s not entirely individual or group generated. People that make films and plays, may be artists but they collaborate to create the story. One person writes it and everyone interprets it. Visual artists often hang out together sharing techniques and ideas. It really is a community thing. All artists need a community in which to belong. There may be people that are more talented than one another, of course. BUT Bottom line: No artist is an island.