“On the web everyone will be famous for 15 people” – David Weinberger

You’ve no doubt heard of Google Street View. How about the Google Art Project? Google is working with 17 of the world’s leading art galleries and museums to digitalise many of the world’s greatest art masterpieces.

So what’s not to like? You can wander down the virtual corridors of the National Gallery in London, MoMA in New York or the Hermitage in St Petersburg and gawp at anything that tickles your fancy. There are no queues and you can zoom in on any detail at the click of a mouse. And it’s free.

However, the project raises some important questions. First, is viewing art online a decent substitute for looking at art in a physical gallery and will the virtual experience ever be the same – or better – than the real thing? At the moment the answer is no. Looking at an image on a screen, even a very large screen, is no substitute for standing directly in front of the actual object. No doubt the technology will improve over time, but there is still no escaping the fact that the object is more than its image.

In real life a painting or work of art inhabits physical space and this somehow connects to us as physical beings, especially when we are looking at something in the presence of other human beings. The fact that the environments in which these objects are usually displayed are themselves beautiful cannot be discounted either. And then there’s the argument that scarcity creates value in the sense that museum and art gallery visitors have often travelled a great distance to see these objects and the effort is itself part of the experience.

Viewing digital art is therefore reductive, whereas viewing physical art is expansive. There is the point, articulated by Nicholas Serota from the Tate Gallery (a participating gallery), that digital visitors might connect in ways that are not possible in real galleries, but if this simply means the exchange of email chatter then I don’t think this amounts to a hill of beans. I suppose there’s also the argument that says you can look at a Rembrandt in bed at 3.00am, to which there is almost no answer. In theory such digital exposure should act as an advertisement for the museums and galleries supporting the project.

Let’s hope so. If cost and convenience turns out to be more important than emotion they may end up putting themselves out of business – forever.

Two ideas.  The first, from Esther Dyson, is that perhaps a tiny micro-payment should be attached to emails (paid for by the sender). This would get rid of spam but might also reduce the amount of unnecessary cc’ing that goes on.

Second idea, from Jaron Lanier, is that you should pay to search. What effect would this have I wonder? Oh, one other thought (can’t remember who from) is whether or not the idea of ‘free’ is concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals and organisations.

A driver in the UK was recently pulled over by police for using a mobile phone and a laptop whilst driving. Police also suspected that the driver might have been eating a sandwich at the same time. Meanwhile, a report in the UK says that DIY skills could be “extinct” by the year 2048 because home maintenance skills are no longer being passed down between generations. In the 1970s 71% of men learnt DIY skills from their dads, now it’s 44%.

Something more serious? OK, I’d predict that romantic novels (i.e. Mills & Boon et al) are going to boom. Why? First, because in times of doom & gloom people need some escapist pleasure with a happy ending. Second, bodice-ripping romance novels are perfect for e-formats. They are quick snacks that do not require deep thinking and the fact that book covers are hidden from view on an e-reader removes the public embarrassment factor. Whether this means that e-readers will encourage authors to write material that’s more pornographic is an interesting question perhaps.