Posted on 18 November 2011 as a reply to #2
Yes, I'm interested in the world of social media too... In fact, one of the reasons I quit Facebook is that the company owns your images, content, status updates, and uses your data to construct ads.
When I tweet or blog about art I do my best to use exactly the same criteria as when I'm using an image for a review published in a print magazine, or for an art history conference. I will obtain permission and credit exactly as the artist wishes, or use images specifically posted under a creative commons license. If the licensing fee is too high, I just don't use the image. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't think it's ever that difficult to just ask permission.
But, from the artist's side, I can see the problem. Not everyone is as scrupulous as me when selecting images to share online. But, what interests me about this question is the fact that we feel under so much pressure these days to make everything about ourselves and our artwork available online - if we keeps things back, we not only feel mean, but also feel we're missing out on marketing opportunities. I would question that assumption. When I write about an exhibition, or select artists for the curatorial projects I'm beginning to develop, my decisions are almost always based upon an encounter with a real object, image, or video - for example, in a MFA show - or with a real person.
I'm interested in what artists hope to gain by spreading their images around the web in a mass photo-sharing kind of way. I understand the value of online portfolios (and yes, these need protection of some kind too), but if you want to be seriously written about, or build relationships with a curator who can help you get shows, the number of retweets your photo has gained has nothing to do with it.
I'm aware this is probably a conventional view, but it my world, it makes sense.