A Website Construction Guide for Visual Artists:

Why bother with a website?

Utility. As of now, the Web is the best communication medium that allows artists full control over how they visualize and promote themselves, as opposed to that supplication ritual known as the slide portfolio.

A website stands ready for call-for-submissions, networking, publishers, and various other marketing purposes. Younger artists are encouraged to create their own sites as a matter of course, and galleries and organizers are increasingly rejecting slide packets altogether. Plus, it is becoming professionally acceptable to send an email invitation to a gallerist/curator to view a portfolio, as it asks very little effort on the part of the recipient to do so.

When it comes right down to it, slide technology is not in the artists' interests. They cost a lot of money, they benefit us in fewer situations than publicly-accessible Web-images, and we all know that folks we send them to tend to hold them towards the overhead light and make their appraisal at a glance. In addition, slide packets do nothing to contribute to networks centered upon better artist/public relationships, which our digital communication technologies are well-suited for.

Visibility. Curators and organizers will use all means to seek out artists for their projects. Generally this is footwork to exhibitions and art fairs, but Web-searches are employed as well. Curators may also wish to scout about to pad up a show in development, and may only have time for viewing online. As an occasional curator myself, it can be quite annoying to be tipped off about an artist with no online material to investigate.

Having a website can't substitute presenting artwork to live viewers, but it can certainly enhance the public presence of an artist who is getting him/herself out there. People will try to access artists from both corporeal/digital fronts, and artists should be present in both to welcome them.

In addition, some artist find themselves in the awkward situation of being only represented online by galleries/archivists who maintain images of their outdated work, or by mediocre images that were hastily slapped up on the Web.

Elasticity. I would urge artists not to think of the Web as just a vault for their promotional information, but as an opportunity to spread out into a parallel visual culture. You need not be a "Web-artist" to appease the flood of visual culture seekers online. As artists do tend to look at and collect a lot of things (in many cases, they are even obsessives and packrats in this regard) there is plenty of opportunity to thicken an initial portfolio site into a hub of various resources and goodies (see Chuck Jones' Baby Gorilla site). Link pages and image indexes are very easy to put together, and a lot of fun. Trafficking in images and data tends to be part of the artistic process for most artists I know, but it is generally behind-the-scenes. The logic of the Web, however, almost begs that such trafficking become manifest and interwoven with what is created/documented as bodies-of-work.

As useful as portfolio sites are, it is often the way that artists extend themselves into the Web that can get them notice (for example: my own portfolio receives about 20-30 visits per day, but my MP3 index enjoyed a steady stream of 400-500 visits per day for several years). Creating a basic portfolio site may sound like a daunting task, but once you get the hang of creating webpages and linking them together, such opportunities look very feasible.

When there are lulls in our exhibition schedules, it is common to feel too dependent on the interest and kindness of a few gallery owners and organizers. The Web can provide the space to showcase new work and develop new projects (see Melinda Fries' Ausgang). As a medium, it does lack physicality and presence, but it gains interconnective abilities and sidesteps spatial/temporal constraints.

Addressing some concerns

• No computer talent or technical ability. None needed! The beauty of the Web is that it is an amateur's paradise. Plus, a website can be created by hand without ever learning a lick of programming code.
  
  
• No time to learn a new skill. Any profession requires learning new skills all the time. Even for artists, who must learn business acumen, taxes, marketing techniques, production techniques, better writing, oration, languages, etc. Fortunately, learning to create a website goes a long way in making achievements in communication and marketing, so it is a facet of one's artistic profession that blends into others. Plus, you only need to learn a little HTML to get a full-fledged site going -- it's popularity rests on the fact that it's easy to apprehend.
  
  
• HTML is too left-brained. Not true. It's a creative endeavor that simply requires some organization.
  
  
• The website won't be sophisticated enough. It doesn't need to be sophisticated, it just needs to be useful. The artworks can be sophisticated instead.
  
  
• No access to advanced equipment. All you need is a computer that is online, some free programs that you can download, access to an image editor (Photoshop, or free alternatives), and server space -- which does cost money, but it's pretty cheap nowadays to get a lot of storage space and bandwidth.
  
  
• JPEG's (or other compressed media files) cannot sufficiently represent artwork. MP3's don't convey the experience of a band's live performance, but they're still essential for exposure. No artist is too good to have compressed reproductions handy for the public.
  
  
• Artworks online could be "stolen" Media that has been compressed for the Web will make lousy reproductions. High-quality MP3's are the exception, and this doesn't deter bands from uploading them (their CD's will get traded on P2P networks anyway). If someone does steal a JPEG for their own work, site, or Ebay t-shirt line -- then it's one stolen work. Go make 100 more.