Great Comment …
In his comment to the article The market limits of JPGs? Jonathan T. D. Neil from Boyd Level wrote:
I’d say I have to agree with Steven Kaplan’s assessment of the JPG as a simple tool of utility. But the JPG isn’t really the issue: What’s at issue is the buying behavior of collectors when transactions become increasingly mediated by technology. One can foresee a day when higher-resolution flatscreens, which are no longer back-lit, as well as high compression technologies which make it easier to send larger image and video packets over the internet, will offer a very attractive way of looking at and making decisions about buying art. Now will this replace the brick-and-mortar gallery? Probably not. But it does extend, as the JPG has already done, a gallery’s reach into markets that were once closed due to geographical distance. Just as it will extend a collector’s reach into galleries in cities other than their own: operations like vernissage.tv and the forthcoming newarttv.com are good examples of ways that habitual gallery-goers and collectors can ‘keep up’ with shows in other places; in the end, their success will depend on the quality of their content and production. What the Saatchi example points up is the fact that the use (and abuse) of technology for collecting must bear with it a metric that measures the price of the work, the price of shipping and insurance of that work, the potential for a sale to a given collector and the impact that that sale will have on future sales. For some galleries, for some works of art, and for some collectors, it’s simply not going to make sense, economically speaking, for the work itself to travel. In those situations, the JPG and its progeny will rule. Now, why works of digital video art have not found a viable online distribution network is a mystery to me…
That’s before he found out about open-PLAYER …
Write a Comment