Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Reply to the "Death" of Print

Recently at the Visual Ambassdor they had a post entitled The Death of Print.

Take a second to read the article (it's short, I'll wait....)

Back? Oh good. I just can't see how the death of print a) equals a devaluation of art nor b) equals the death of "real journalism" as the author states. Art is more prolific on the web that has ever been before. There are dozens (and dozens) of sites for artists to not only display their work, but sell it too. No longer is the artist bound by an agent or gallery that takes a percentage of their profits. Most museums are online, some even display parts of their collection online. So please tell me how this is killing art?

The author's second point is that hard investigative journalism is dying alongside print. What? We're entering the age of power to the little people: everyone now has a voice to call out the evil misdeeds of weasel corporations and it will be seen, heard and Facebooked or Retweeted to the entire world in minutes. Compare this to printed newspapers where it would take days (or even longer) for news to spread. This is bad how?

I understand that a big change like the death of print might be scary to a journalist who will need to adapt to this new reality and maybe have to learn some new skills. But if this truly is the death of print (how long has this been promised now, like 10 years?), then I say bring it on, things are getting better not only for artists but for the average person and that's a good thing.

No comments: