Art has been part of culture for thousands of years: social media has a short history, but today, it arguably makes a bigger impact on people's day-to-day lives than art. By "social media" I'm talking Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms that allow people to update their statuses via text or photographs whenever the need arises. Smartphones allow social media users to exist in a state of suspended updates-- there is no turning on and off. People are always connected. What's interesting about social media is that it levelled the playing field for self-expression. Social media dictates that everyone can express themselves and upload their thoughts with very limited filters. The problem with that? It changes everything for artists. Art is about self expression as well, and if everyone can post their ideas online as they have them, there is more to compete with.
Ben Davis, associate editor of Artnet Magazine, uses semiotics to rationalize the overlapping circles of artists and social media users. He uses a semiotic square, which visually represents possible relationships within generated parameters.
As seen in this representation, Davis argues that there is a considerable difference between involving social media in art and using social media in art. "The utility of this operation is that it lets us see that the question of "art and social media" actually involves an opposition between two different fields, with different logics: a relatively exclusive, closed-in type of expression vs. a relatively open, relation-based mode of operation" (Artnet article).
For example, Mann Bartlett's performance at the PPOW Gallery. For 24 hours, Bartlett recited whatever people sent him over Twitter. This is an example of creating art with social media, because the social network was essential to this piece. However, Brian Piana's piece "Ellsworth Kelly Hacked My Twitter" used pre-existing Tweets as colour blocks against an abstract grid. The difference between the two pieces is that while Piana used Twitter in his piece, he did not use it in a live, social way. Bartlett used the immediacy of Twitter to generate his performance.
The artist Megan Smith demonstrated use of Twitter in her own art pieces. She created devices that streamed Tweets from the surrounding area. This is definitely an example of using social networks in artwork, similar to Bartlett's live performance. In this piece, Tweets are being scrolled through in real time, using Twitter to its full capacity. How is this art? By capturing the thoughts of people from a single physical area, rather than a group existing only online, it provides a cyberspace snapshot of the public's feelings and actions at a particular time.
In CTCH 110, we experienced using social media for purposes other than a person is supposed to do. How are you "supposed" to use Facebook or Twitter? Well, technically, it's to create your own personal profile and connect with other people. However, my group didn't do that. We created a web personality by making a Twitter account with one purpose in mind. It's called @Mediocre Haikus... Clearly, the goals here are for humour, not changing the world. Check it out here.
Operating a Twitter profile whose sole purpose is to publish mediocre haiku poetry sounds somewhat useless, and perhaps it is (but it is a low-pressure creative outlet). However, internet personalities are common and often powerful. In this case, it's an anonymous account that creates one thing. That generates the reputation. The tweets are humorous and satirical, which could attract followers who want to be entertained (which is the main purpose of social media). The real seduction in "Internet fame" is the power a person gains from their followers. Brief decades ago, this wasn't noteworthy. Now, there are people that make their living from the Internet. YouTubers such as Jenna Marbles or Mike Falzone literally get paid to make videos expressing their views and opinions.
