Snapchat vs the Humanities: Should the Arts Take Cues from Silicon Valley?

Snapchat vs the Humanities: Should the Arts Take Cues from Silicon Valley?

August 14, 2017
  • Seminal pieces of data-driven art like Google Dream’s Dogscan make you nauseous, and artists should learn about money from research scientists. These were among the insights that emerged from a recent heated discussion on digital and the arts at the Serpentine Galleries.

    The roundtable of 30 people, ranging from prominent artists and art institutions to private companies, was convened by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to kick off a public consultation on government policy for digital and art. (Conversation hashtag #cultureisdigital.)

    Fault lines were quickly found along the role of artists in a world obsessed with startup culture, the longstanding challenge for artists to justify funding, and disruption in the arts versus Silicon Valley.

    Almost every established company now pays some form of homage to the success of Silicon Valley. Whether sending hapless CEOs to coding camps, investing in early stage startups, or pushing programming processes like AGILE into inappropriate places, not all succeed. As a result, many in the arts remain wary.

    “The culture of Silicon Valley churns out products where ‘done is better than perfect’,” one participant said (the event was held under Chatham House Rules). “But we cannot turn artists into product machines.”

    The greatest consensus in the room, however, fell around admiration for Vannevar Bush’s achievement for modern science with his "Endless Frontier" report to Franklin Roosevelt in 1945. The report galvanised politicians, popularised the term "Basic Research", positioned science as vital to national interests and is credited with driving a tenfold increase in science funding from the 1940s to the 1960s.

    "Ever since that report and updates to it, basic research science has had steady support," one arts administrator said, with more than a touch of envy. "It was one of the few areas where funding did not drop, even during the financial crisis."

    The arts today, it was generally agreed, need a Vannevar Bush.

    The most heated part of the discussion, however, came around the topic of disruption.

    A core tenet to the Silicon Valley gospel, disruption must be good, right? But disruption means something quite different to businesses and artists.

    Business disruption follows Clayton Christiansen’sInnovator’s Dilemma, where a new technology or technique undermines the established way of solving a problem. In undermining old, big industries, Silicon Valley creates new, big industries that risk turning into modern monopolies: Uberfor transport, AirBnB for hotels, Netflix for online films, etc.

    For artists, disruption challenges the establishment, with the aim of holding a jarring mirror to society and “putting it to the man”, as one artist put it.

    “If the world is defined today by open source and partnership,” the artist added, “shouldn’t the pursuit of artistic disruption today be the opposite of collaboration?”

    Yet if art defines itself by the extent to which it challenges society, palette-wielding Silicon Valley CEOs may soon be elbowing their way in for government arts funding. Mark Zuckerberg’s application could argue that Facebook is a massive piece of performance art built to support his Warhol-like manifesto, declared in 2010: “Privacy is dead.”

    WIRED



  • More features
  • News

We use cookies and browser capability checks to help us deliver our online services, including to learn if you enabled Flash for video or ad blocking. By using our website or by closing this message box, you agree to our use of browser capability checks, and to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Policy.