The internet, democracy, and the exlusive nature of museums

In this article which I arrived at via iheartphotograph, I read some interesting responses to the Brooklyn Museum´s show, click!. Basically the premise was that anyone could submit work and anyone could vote on what the end product would look like.

Most of the responses seemed optimistic, that it was an interesting experiment but Jennifer Blessing, curator of photography at the Guggenheim thinks that there was nothing to learn. I think that it´s a valid question to ask, when curators and museums are typically thought of places to learn and that the idea of paring down the available works out there to the most interesting and compelling pieces is extremely important. But to answer what is to be learned, I would say that experimentation is essential to learning. Art has always naturally pushed its own boundaries and definition of what is acceptable, successful and interesting.

This show maybe is a good contrast to a professionally curated show because it talks about democracy and how that relates to a subjective thing such as photography as art. Seeing how the public reacts when given the chance, what their taste is like is interesting to me. Does exclusivity in art work because it keeps the same players on top, or does it really secure that only quality work is in front of the public?

In an ideal world, the best work would naturally rise to the forefront, and it normally does. But to call a chance for unseen work, organized by unknown people as a mistake or as a non learning experience is short sighted.

In the end, I don´t care if the good work gets seen because mom and dad could afford a Yale education or because some artist puts it up on flickr and creates a forum. If the work is of high quality, that shouldn´t matter.