Decoupling Art From The Artisan

Our era of human digitization (homo-digitalis?) is rapidly changing the way we do many things which we might ordinarily view as being unchanging.  An example is the way that we create tangible “objects of art”.


For most of our history, Art (Latin for “craft”) has implicitly required a degree of physical skill and dexterity at the end of a creative process. An example of the process might be:

  • Perceiving and interpreting the world around us – as it was, as it is and as it could be
  • Conceiving a “thing” to be created in our minds eye
  • Choosing a medium – oils, watercolours, wood, stone, silver, glass
  • Crafting with hands and tools (chisel, spray-can, paintbrush, toothbrush etc) – i.e. Using learned and gifted artisanal skills to make the conceptual become tangible.

Note: this classification obviously has no academic root, I’ve just created it to illustrate a point. If you have any knowledge of art theory please don’t cringe!

By necessity, early “art” required manual dexterity and was artisan.  Whether creating a painting of a buffalo or pharaoh; or crafting a shell necklace or china vase; or engraving a copper Idol or brass armor.

Photography, started muddling this process. Pin hole cameras enabled sketch portrait artists to better mirror ‘reality” by tracing the outline of a sitting subject.


Camera obscura Tischapparat 1769 kl

Chemical photography took this further with “fixed” silver replacing oil-on-a-brush to create a facsimile of the projected image. In the process the camera became both a tool for  conceiving as well as a tool to craft the “art” from the medium. The completed work, the permanent image, still required artisan skill to finish it, with hands-on exposing, developing, editing and cropping of the completed image.  Skilled manual manipulation of chemicals and photographic paper being the physical medium of creation.

Self portait darkroom1

Next, with digital photography, images are displayed on a digital screen on the camera as soon as they’re taken. They’re then edited in digital format and can be transported electronically to any digital printer in the world before becoming tangible, if we ever need them to be that is (how many gigabytes of holiday snaps have you already accumulated?).

Perhaps more profound is the impact that these new artistic tools have on our perception of the world – which then feeds and influences our creativity.  We now carry digital camera everywhere we go – giving us a pictorial record of our lives, which would have been unimaginable just ten years ago. In the last few years, Social Media has now brought us everyone else’s lives in pictures (although maybe only the best ones).

None of this is to say that the creative process is diminished, far from it. Simply that our hands-on relationship with the media is now about manipulation of pixels using clicks and touch screens. Perception, conception and creation is now digital and the mucky bit – working with atoms and molecules – is becoming mechanised.  This is a broad theme of the digital era (who hand rivets car bodies anymore?) and it’s an ongoing process.

Beyond photography, 3D printing now lets us “outsource” the artesanal process of creating 3D objects.


A couple of days ago my 8 year old daughter asked me to download 123D Sculpt. It’s an iPad app and it, along with a sister app called 123D Creature (above), enable digital “sculpting” and painting of a 3D shape. Once created, the digital shape can be 3D printed and mailed to you (what happened to modeling clay!?).

Of course, this doesn’t replace existing artistic media, at least not immediately, but it’s a fantastic example of how our lives are changing in steady, almost unnoticeable, increments.  As we become increasingly entangled with our digital devices, our current reliance on keyboards and mice to manually manipulate pixels to “create” may soon seem quaintly artesanal (don’t be surprised to see a brief hipster revival of “keyboard creative” cool in 20 years or so).

Finally, removing the “artisan” element also makes it far easier for most of us to make the leap from the conception of an idea to creating a tangible “thing” that can be shared, perceived and hopefully understood by others. Purists might see this as a dumbing down of art but it can also be argued that these advances actually make the creative process far more accessible and egalitarian.  As the rest of the world becomes connected this decade, making ideas easier to share must surely be a good thing?


Photo credits:,,,,

Cracks In The Mirror : Does Klout Make You Mad?


Much has been written about our mental health in the digital era, from Internet Digital Addiction to Mobile Phone Social Media obsessions and the negative causes and consequences of cyber bullying (for both the victims and the protagonists).

Like most media, the internet transmits an image of our collective selves and, as it does so, it distorts the image in it’s own peculiar way, influenced by the way that we interact with it and it’s component parts.

Advertising is a component part. It’s the billion-dollar lifeblood that pays for almost everything we use and consume on the Internet.   As we all make the shift to doing most of our digital “stuff” socially and on the mobile, advertising dollars are following our eyeballs.

With a smartphone in hand, a selection of our friends, acquaintances, favorite content and favoured brands are always with us, randomly waiting to be interacted with (or simply browsed), whenever and wherever we choose.  Be it at workon the train or on the loo, mobile/social connectivity increasingly fills the gaps in all our lives.  More and more of our real-life lives are being spent, reflected, stored and displayed virtually.

When our activity is reflected online, it becomes measurable. For brands who truly “get it”, this new environment gets us all a step closer to the marketing promised land, where advertising disappears and grows-up to become perfectly targeted and timely information: non-intrusive, real-time, interactive, context aware, relevant and personal.

But we’re not quite there yet.


For now, attempts by the marketing community to understand us by tapping into this deep new well of social data are focused on fairly crude and simplistic metrics.

One popular activity is identification of influencers – people identified as best able to persuade their friends and followers to buy a product or service. Think TV’s Oprah Effect (product endorsements) measured at social internet scale, across the billions of people participating on social networks.


Over the last decade, Google has become the world’s default search engine by carefully ranking websites. Now, influence score sites such as KloutKred and peerindex are vying to become the default service for ranking of people. They rate our individual “influence” on our friends by aggregating metrics (followers, connections, frequency of activity, responses etc) from a variety of Social media sites sites (facebook, twitter, LinkedIn etc) and then give each of us a “score”.

Their hope is that these public scores will then be used by marketers to better target likely advocates of whatever it is that they are hoping to sell.

As with any early stage technology, the Influence score business is changing rapidly and has some methodological growing pains such as buying of fake friends & followers  to enhance perceived social standing and “influence”.

HowMuchForA10 cartoonstock

There’s also an issue with attempts to manipulate influence scores prompted by the secrecy surrounding the scoring methodologies used (e.g. the number of Pinterest followers you have may not count but tweeting a restaurant tip from FourSquare may count double). All this leads to a flurry of guessing and second guessing worthy of a Monty Python sketch:

Now please don’t misunderstand me, Influence scores are very useful in the right context (i.e. for social media and media professionals) and I admire any start-up that’s exploring what’s possible at the edges of a rapidly evolving medium.  Fixes for some of the marketing issues are evolving rapidly. More enlightened Internet marketeers are weighing in with common sense commentary and Social Media tools are emerging which shine light on fakes and forgeries.

There’s a broader concern though.

The aim of the influence score is to go beyond what Google does when ranking inanimate web pages. Whether we opt-in or not, selected social interactions are crystallized into a condensate of our digital personality and presented as a single public influence score for every socially active entity: brands, governments – and everyday people. You. Me. Everyone.


So, how will the process of creating a secretly calculated but public score for everyone effect our collective mental health?

Measuring Our Social Well-being 

“The attentions of others matter to us because we are afflicted by a congenital uncertainty as to our own value, as a result of which affliction we tend to allow others’ appraisals to play a determining role in how we see ourselves. Our sense of identity is held captive by the judgements of those we live among.”
― Alain de BottonStatus Anxiety

In the 1950’s Social Psychologist, Marie Jahoda, was interested in how periods of unemployment effected mental health.


She identified five factors that influence our day-to-day social well-being:  

From these she identified measures of “Ideal Mental Health”, listed below. Try reading through this list while thinking about your own use of Facebook, or that of a friend, it should be an interesting exercise!

  • Do you have a realistic perception of who you are – your true selves?
  • Do have a general feeling of acceptance?
  • Do you have voluntary control over your own behaviour (or at least feel that you do)?
  • Do you have a true and realistic perception of the world(s) we live in?
  • Can you attain deep relationships and share affection with others?
  • How productive are you within the social groups that you engage in?

Social Media has the power to both impede and greatly uplift our social health in all of these areas.  Moreover, as a distorting mirror, it amplifies these effects across entire communities of inter-connected people (there are some wonderful examples of both in Tan Siok Siok‘s crowd-sourced documentary Twittamentary).

Influence scores like Klout, Kred and PeerIndex add additional layers of commentary, abstraction and then, by ranking, imply competition. So whilst they seek to provide clarity, they also add yet more distortion to the socialmedia reflection of ourselves.  Creating a publicly visible score of everyone’s social “worth”, naturally has an influence on behaviour and creates feedback loops, further changing the score. For some individuals scoring has the potential to endlessly change behaviour based on arbitrary rules to stay “winning” – not always a very healthy place to be!  Remember the deranged and drug addled Charlie Sheen “winning” meme last year?


A central theme in Jahoda’s work concerns the ongoing tension between our ability to balance constancy (i.e. our ability to be grounded and true to who we are) and change (i.e. being adaptable and open to the views and perspectives of others).

As the internet matures and becomes seamlessly intertwined with everything that we do, it should ideally have the structure to assist and reinforce our ability to attain and maintain this balance.

So, will Klout and similar services make you mad? No, not on their own. The danger is in the direction in which they might take us. It’s people that form the fabric of the internet. Collectively, we enable it to be an amazing medium, which many believe is accelerating human development.  A good and obvious guiding principle when designing any new service should be to ensure that the social mental well-being of users, like you,  is sacrosanct.

Next up: Cracks In The Mirror : BigData and Harvesting Your Identity

N.B. Photo credit: