...remind me of one of those contrived "unsolicited testimonials"? I went to the site and logged on to inspect it and I came away feeling that the level of enthusiasm exhibited in this post seemed incommensurate with the performance of a website that's been online for just one day. The chief appeals seem to be the establishment of provenance, international "protection" (from Interpol, no less - as if they would really be interested in tracking down my stolen art - everybody's always trying to steal my art, you know), and access to art-related information. Sorry to be a party pooper but for $19.95 a month or $200 a year I am wondering what FAR would really be doing for me. The ID tags seem to be a stickyback version of a COA and they cost extra. Is there really an urgent need to log every artist and every artist's work in some central database? For me it's enough just to walk the surface of the planet.
During my spell as a moderator at another art forum, one of the members suggested that I ought to take the time to collect all the available links of all the artists, famous or not-so, that I could find on the Internet "in one place" so as to make it easier to look up any artist. I guess I just thought that spending years of my life trying to reinvent the Internet itself (it already is that "one place") would be a collosal waste of time. After all, you can search the World Wide Web by name, by art category, by art period, by art school, by art history... by virtually any categorical search parameter that one can imagine.
At the risk of alienating another dART client or supporter, it seems to me that despite FAR's mission statement its main purpose seems to be collecting money from artists. I guess I just balk when I hear unbridled enthusiasm. It seems so evangelistic and it always raises the hackles on the back of my neck.
|
|
