A Website Construction Guide for Visual Artists:

How to Go About It

The very first thing an artist should do before even thinking about a website is to digitize the artwork. Scanning slides can get expensive, so I recommend rephotographing artworks with a digital camera, or using a flatbed scanner if size permits. Get digital files that are as large as possible (at least 300 DPI). With this done, you have a cache of digital reproductions that can be very useful for gallerists, or anyone trying to publish an article about your work.

Once you have digital copies of your artwork, you'll need to make copies that are appropriate for the Web. Web-images are much smaller and lighter (in filesize) than good documentation scans. Go for 72 DPI (to conform to computer monitors), and generally shrink them down to just several hundred pixels in either direction. Once you have these copies on your hard-drive, you have an arsenal of images that you can email to gallerists, curators, art-writers, etc. I have more information about this on the Image files page.

Audio files are best reproduced as MP3's. Video files are typically compressed as Quicktime or RealVideo files, but there is a lot of clamor online about switching to Flash files (YouTube has spearheaded this conversion).

Obviously, you can accomplish a lot with these 2 steps alone, even without a website.

Outside services

Although I will argue that artists need to be able to actively manipulate the Web according to their own goals and aesthetics, there are numerous solutions to getting a website without having to learn HTML.

Finding a webdesigner: especially a Web-saavy acquaintance who will work for cheap or for bartered goods. You can also try contacting Webdesign or New Media departments of local universities, as students in these programs need to build a portfolio of real-world clients. The usual problem here is that once a website is made, it can slowly fall out of date because its owner does not know how to change it, and doesn't want to keep imposing on other people for help. Still, something is better than nothing.

Weblogs: Systems such as Blogger/Blogspot, TypePad or WordPress offer you an interface that allows you to feed in data and images and the page is automated for you. The downside is that you aren't controlling the presentation, or at best your control is compromised. Plus, the structure of the site is modeled after online diaries: new entries at the top, older entries fall to the bottom, or disappear into the archives. In any case, this can be a pretty good temporary solution to an online portfolio.

MySpace: This is a Rupert Murdoch product folks! Admittedly this system seems to work great for bands, and I still see respectable musicians with accounts. But for artists trying to promote professional work, there is no better way to convey a sense of "juvenile", "trivial" and "lazy".

Photoshop's Web Photo Gallery: This may be the most crude solution, but if you can select File/Automate/Web Photo Gallery. It will allow you to select a folder of images, and it will autmatically create webpages and thumbnails. There are also some limited options for webfolio styles and customization. The result is a digital slideshow with navigation (which I do use for slideshow presentations), but impersonal and lacking in textual information. You'll still need to upload the site to your server space with an FTP application.

Flickr: A service which allows folks to upload enormous batches of digital photos with the help of a friendly interface. The basic account is free. This service might be nice for sharing collections or particular projects (like JIMWICh's "Faces" project), but may be a bit too pedestrian for an artist's portfolio.

Re-title: This is an international listings guide for artists/galleries/events, and it is something I keep bumping into it while conducting art-related searches on Google. It doesn't seem cheaper than purchasing your own server space, and I do think the pages look a bit clunky. Here's the Re-title Chicago page

Other Peoples' Pixels: This might seem like an ideal solution to many artists -- for a fee you can access a control panel that helps you to create a rather handsome Flash site ($80/year for a very basic plan, and it can get expensive fast for artists wanting to upload audio/video files). One caveat I'd like to offer is that since Flash .swf files do not break down into individually bookmark-able pages, or downloadable media files -- they basically run like a little movie, with some interactive features. This can often frustrate users, and search engines cannot find the text content in such sites, since it isn't actually "text" but rather math-driven imagery. In addition, if the user is on a computer with a Flash blocker (as a defense against excessive YouTube appreciation, particularly at workplaces), then your site is unviewable. Also, I have a feeling that as the service becomes more widespread, viewers will be able to recognize the "OPP look", which could possibly diminish the impact of the portfolio. Nevertheless, if you need to get an attractive, professional-looking site up fast, this might be a good route (especially since it does employ automatic image-resizing).

I've seen other online companies that sell artists webpages and promise an audience of collectors, but if you are into the latest few decades of contemporary art these might not appeal to you.


The problem with all automated solutions is that the website simply becomes a storage unit for an artist's data, rather than an integral part of an artist's public presentation. This may sound like splitting hairs to anyone who simply needs to get their work on the Web for the first time, but the portfolio is a much more holistic tool than is commonly appreciated. A simple HTML site created by an artist can be much more versatile and personable than a fancier automated product, and can better reflect (and amplify) the artist's aesthetics and marketing values -- which I believe is important in controlling the psychological and professional impact of the interface, and integrating a digital presence into an artistic practice.

DIY

I do believe that artists should be able to independently perform some basic webdesign. Not only for their personal portfolios, but also to help promote exhibitions, facilitate networks, and respond to whatever Web-based need arises. In addition, there is always a greater need of online archiving of exhibits and events -- something that is commonly neglected even by many gallery sites. Being able to design archives is a great way for an artist to establish a role in an art scene, and to help visualize it for its participants and for all those outside of its circles.

Automated webdesign applications like Dreamweaver or Adobe GoLive can do the job well enough, but the drawback is that you need access to the application to begin with (Nvu is an open-source alternative) and there is a learning curve. These WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) interfaces, being safely removed from raw scripting, do not necessarily cure the designer's confusion about the Web. Also, many of the webpage building features end up generating very robust scripting in the Web documents that older browsers might have trouble reading.

Fortunately, all that you really need are the following:

• Text editor: These are very basic, very slim programs for typing script that are far more rudimentary than a word processing application (which is important, because HTML scripting shouldn't be encumbered with excessive data). Windows has Notepad and Wordpad built-in, but I would recommend downloading SciTE for free, since it color-codes the different types of HTML script you are typing (and uses red when it suspects an error). Mac OSX has TextEdit, which sucks, so instead get your free download of TextWrangler or Smultron.
  
  
• Image editor: Photoshop is the standard, but there are cheaper alternatives (or free alternatives, like Gimp), especially if you search for applications that are limited to digital image creation.
  
  
• Server space: you'll need to put your site on a server to store your files and make them publicly accessible. This is something that is purchased on a monthly/yearly basis. More on server space.
  
  
• FTP application: These are programs that allow you to access your server account space. You log in with your access key, and then drag-and-drop files from your hard-drive to the target hard-drive. These programs are free: Filezilla or WinSCP for Windows, and Cyberduck for Mac OSX.
  
  
• Domain name: Nowadays, this is typically included as part of your server package, but if you're are getting free server space via work or school, then you can look into a service like Godaddy which charges about $9/year for domain names that can be forwarded to your existing URL.

Do keep in mind that getting your information and images available for Web access is a simple task, and it is appropriate that a simple site accomplish the task. Your site is not required to reflect the complexity of your artwork -- it is often the best policy if the site decorations stay out of the way, and allow the media files to shoulder the burden of titillating the audience. Flash animation and impressive navigational strategies are fine, but definitely not a necessity. Moreover, I have heard gallerists complain about having to swim through extraneous bullshit (especially with Flash sites) just to get to what they really wanted in the first place: media files and text information. Being able to format text and compositional space is all you need to give the pages visual elegance, and reflect your individual aesthetic. If you want your site to show off your webdesign skills to prospective employers, then you are not even reading this tutorial anyway.

Besides, artists' sites are notoriously clumsy and bloated with inessential details. So if you make a mediocre first site, you're still in the 70% percentile.