Functional Virtual Vibrations

From Stefani

to Gaga

I want to look more at the topics of art, creativity and fame, with regard to social identity and surveillance.  Art being so broad and abstract allows for connection between different spheres of creativity, and identity. Online social media outlets like MySpace, YouTube, Tumblr and Pintrest, to name a few have become major platforms for this creativity to take place, so that those who master these spaces become “stars” and those who frequent this spaces become fans.  Therefore the idea of fame, and by default celebrity, certainly becomes more fluid, and very subject to the level of interest of the viewer.  This is primarily why a strong web presence is essential to fame and celebrity culture.  If this were not the case, would anyone care who Kim Kardashian is?  Or would we have ever come to know the talents of Stefani Germanotta had she not become Lady Gaga?  After a lackluster response to her second album, it could be argued that “Sasha Fierce” single handedly transformed Beyoncé’s career into pop star status.  These are some of the most contemporary examples of the fluidity of identity on fame culture.  The Internet allows audiences to essentially access the persona without accessing the person.  Virtually anyone can create their own fame, because all you need are fans and the Internet has these in abundance.  Reflexive identity is very much a part of the process of many creative people and almost a given for most artists.  The creative process is so much about materializing aspects of the internal self and expelling them onto the world around. While that may sound vulgar, we do this throughout our lives at varying levels of intensity, and with varying levels of success.  All the while, we are always watching someone else do the same thing to see if they are successful.  With out Albrechtshlund’s “participatory surveillance” there could be no reason for creativity, or fame.  In fact, fame is dependent on this for survival since it rarely goes beyond the expulsion phase of the process.

Now, when I want to see art, I go to a gallery.  If I want to see artifact, I go a museum.  What, you may ask is the difference?  An artifact is any object that is created and used with the purpose of performing a specific function (Merriam Webster, 2013).  Much of it has to do with questions like, when was the work created, and how was it perceived by the audience of the time?  What was the “function” of the creator in his or her society?  How is this work relevant to the aesthetic tastes of my present? What then is the function of art or creativity?   If I have to ability to see any work of art anywhere in the world, though an online source and then share the discovery through online social media, all those participating in my surveillance stand to gain equal enrichment through what was an individual exploit.  I believe this is the function of art and creativity that social media maximizes. By definition, the social media space becomes an artifact that can be recalled and examined as a window into the era to which we belong.  

Now is all of it good?  Absolutely not.  Access to more, often means access to mess, just ask those who were around for Gutenberg’s press.  But the option to refine our tastes through exposure has never been greater, or more welcomed. And refine them we must or we stand to water down the glories of our existence in exchange for cheap thrills and benign ambivalence.  To watch and be watched cannot be taken for granted as some means of self-gratification, but perhaps it can be used for edification.  In our time we are extremely fortunate that we have the ability to initiate these new interactions through a tool like online social media. I think we should also remember the importance of physical contact to human development. As humans we thrive off the sensory exchange of physical touch and vibrations from others like ourselves. After all, life cannot be fully lived looking out of the window.