Reading Response 1

While I agree that the groundwork has already been laid our for most .GIF makers, I do not agree with Sally Mackay’s arguments that .GIFs are not truly art.  Although she argues in her article “The Affect of the Animated GIFS” that the intention of GIF making is not to make Art, and the experience of GIF making and viewing is not conducive to the art experience. Mackay’s claims that “GIFs are designed to be vies at home, in private, by people who are sitting at their computers,” in my mind does not present a hindrance to art, but it expands the availability of art. Instead of going to galleries and museums, audiences can experience a piece of graphical art from their own homes. This availability of this art exposure increases the necessity for convergence media and the appropriation of different forms of media to attract Internet user’s attention. However, with the increase in availability of Gif making software, there is also an increase of artists into the market. This poses an intellectual question of who could be considered an artist? Someone who appropriates and manipulates existing art for a cultural statement or someone who makes animated Gifs from scratch for joy?

The classification of artist solely lies with the purpose and intentions of the creator. Mackay contends “the animated GIF is appealing to many internet artists because it signifies an anti-corporate agenda as well as a kind of “truth to materials” commitment to technologies that are elegantly designed for democratic online use,” (MacKay). If there is a increase in activism against the exploitation and the exclusivity of art, then the entire culture of Gif making becomes a performance art piece itself.