What is the Place of Influencers and Content Creators in the Art World?
Make it stand out
After the word influencer left some with a bad taste in their mouth, many adopted the more sanitised term “content creator” in its stead. The concept of the influencer raises images of vapidity, mindless consumption, and one stereotypical look - mannequins for the internet - despite the huge variety of people creating content online which duly influences their audiences.
Curator Alexandra Steinacker, who recently discussed the challenge of arts institutions teaming with internet personalities in her podcast All About Art, told me that when it comes down to the term content creator versus influencer that “the latter has gained quite negative connotations throughout the last few years especially because it is connected with paid sponsorships”. We all follow at least a couple of accounts whose posts are peppered with #ad, #gifted, or #pr, and although wary of the marketing plan behind their shares, seeing their endorsement may even have been enough for us to reach into our wallets once or twice.
But how do social media influencers cross over to the world of art - renownedly, snobbily, and doggedly obsessed with authenticity? Surely we’re not as easily influenced to buy a Lowry as we are a lip stain. What product could art and art historical creators be flogging in a way that didn’t feel discordant - Paint? Masters degree loans? Yet the art world undoubtedly utilises influencers, just in a way that is markedly different to the fashion and beauty industries, in which there is a specific product or service to be sold.
___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Influencers and social media stars are regular names on art world invitation lists for events and private views. The line between fashion and art is also often blurred, and both focusses revolve around self-expression and creativity. After all, the art world is a fashionable place, and some artists end up becoming fashion influencers in their own right - dressed by luxury brands, influencing collections, and featuring on the pages of glossy mags like Tatler. It would seem that influencers in the art world are less about direct revenue generation, but about attendance and reputation: galleries and museums want to be seen as hubs for the influential and beautiful.
Recently the National Gallery put out an open call for content creators to join their ‘200 Creators’ project to celebrate the gallery’s 200th birthday. Some hopeful applicants were then shocked to see that in order to apply, your follower count had to be 100k on Instagram, 50k on YouTube, or 1m likes on TikTok. The social media arts space is a niche one, and many of the art world’s best recognised and respected creators have followings of less than 10% of these requirements. One comment on the gallery’s post announcing an extension of the application deadline for the ‘200 Creators’ project read “I don’t have enough followers sadly! Your idea is to help under-represented talent but they have to have over 100k followers on Instagram to apply! LOL that doesn’t make sense”.
Galleries and museums around the world are scratching their heads to find ways to broaden their audiences - in particular to bring young adults into their spaces - and accessing the broad, non-niche audience of mega-influencers would seem like a great start. It is an unequivocally good thing that they are trying to bring in new visitors and engage with the online world. But would art-focussed content from a non-art-focussed creator be any good? Writer Aimee Dawson, who recently wrote a piece on art world influencers ‘Under the influence – can social media stars also be market makers?’ for Apollo magazine, spoke to me about this approach towards wide, non-specialist audiences: Aarts institutions ultimately work with influencers in a bid to reach younger audiences that are less engaged in the visual arts. For many museums, success is a numbers game and so reaching an influencer’s millions of followers is seen as a benefit whether that audience is ‘relevant’ or not.”
But collaborations with internet personalities aren’t always a hit, even when those creators are experts in the field making specifically art-themed content. On September 11th, the National Gallery shared photos of the digital creators Lucy Donovan and Toby Albert-Corban taken during their engagement photoshoot in the gallery after-hours. Lucy is the host of the Girl & Gallery podcast and her Instagram account - followed by 133k - is entirely art-focussed. Nonetheless, some commenters seemed displeased with the photoshoot, with one commenter saying “really disappointed to see the National Gallery allowing content creators to use their museum as a backdrop for a photoshoot” and another asking “has the National Gallery completely lost the plot?”.
I wonder whether a lot of the backlash institutions face when they incorporate influencers into their marketing plans is the result of the cultural exaltation of art to quasi-religious levels. The art world has built its wealth and reputation by presenting art-viewing as an intellectual activity, that some people ‘get’ and others don’t. We move through white-walled rooms in reverent silence. We don’t touch anything. We never say that anything is crap.
Despite the original artist’s intentions, galleries and museums suffer by making themselves places of worship rather than places of discovery. Society looks down on influencers as an easy job for the self-obsessed, ignoring the arduous work that goes into amassing a large, dedicated following on any social media platform. It is no wonder that for many people, influencers and the art world seem diametrically opposed, but the issue lies with an art industry that perhaps moved too slowly to incorporate content creators into their businesses plans in a meaningful way.