Does Anyone Here Speak Art and Tech?

That being said I definitely don't fit into the tech + art audience that was being defined in this article. It seems to be implied that there is a large amount of naïveté regarding art amongst techies, which is very true for the most part, and they're just looking to burn their piles of tech money on something pretty (which is certainly debatable). I study art and art history in my spare time, with a particular focus on Japanese art and Ukiyo-e: http://ukiyo-e.org/ This seems to be very rare in the tech world with few technical people being interested in the humanities, let alone art and art history.

One point I mentioned to the reporter, but was left off, was that almost all art I collect is either antique (and then acquired from auction or dealer) or if it's from a living/contemporary artist then from the artist directly. I've never met a more disdainful group of people then art dealers, especially contemporary art dealers.

It's especially surprising that the article didn't mention Artsy (http://artsy.net) considering that it's right in NYC and it's the perfect intersection of the contemporary art world and tech. They are much more connected to contemporary art galleries and dealers and are working very hard to get people connected to the art they're interested in - which seems to be largely fixing the issue(s) outlined in the article.

There is a lot of interesting work happening in tech + art right now in NYC and I'm excited to even be in the outskirts. Cool projects like:

http://www.eyebeam.org/ http://arthackday.net/god_mode/ http://www.nypl.org/collections/labs http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/ Not to mention many of the projects here: http://caa2013.thatcamp.org/

[1] http://deviantart.com

This article seems to be talking exclusively of 'high art'.

Art isn't just found in galleries, and isn't necessarily for sale for a lot of money.

Obviously the NYTimes is focused on this type, but it's an important distinction.

The reason for 'friction' in the art business, from my view is because it's not a traditional business. Very few galleries can actually turn a profit from sales. The few that do are in the largest cities, at the top of a mountain of unprofitable, privately funded lifestyle businesses or non-profits.

The value of art is also quite hard to quantify, especially for the outsider as the article says. The art world is confusing and insular compared to other businesses, both for new artists and collectors. The upshot is it's largely accessible from the ground up! Small venues are everywhere and desperate for eyes and dollars, everyone is invited.