Thoughts on the Death of Flash and New Media Art

Last Tuesday Adobe announced that it will stop updating and supporting Flash Player at the end of 2020. This was followed by announcements from Apple, Microsoft, Google and Mozilla on how they plan to phase the plug-in out of their browsers ahead of its kill-date. The news was met with near-universal exuberance from tech journalists and pundits, who have been predicting/advocating the death of Flash for several years now. After all, Flash is resource-intensive, represents a security risk and has been replaced by far more efficient options in most applications--not to mention the glaring lack of mobile support.

From the late 90s up until just a few years ago, Flash was one of the most viable options for those looking to create interactive web content that could be readily viewed by the vast majority of--if not all--non-mobile users. This, combined with its relative ease-of-use/accessibility, made it a favorite among hobbyists and small time developers who wouldn't otherwise have had an avenue to create and distribute interactive art on the web.

Adobe's statement "encourage[s] content creators to migrate any existing Flash content to [ . . . ] open formats." This is easier said than done--while video content may be relatively easy to carry over, interactive content will need to be reworked entirely to be web-compatible in the Flash-less future.

This concept--that the onus is on the artist to preserve their own work--is a hallmark of new media art; as technology "progresses" and new standards are adopted, artists must either make sure their work conforms or watch it disappear. Considering that a lot of Flash content was created by hobbyists who are years removed from it, the odds are that a lot of it will fall into obsolescence over the next few years.

It's obvious that Flash is well past the point of relevance in terms of modern web development, and Adobe can't be blamed for not being willing to sink resources into preserving an antiquated technology. However, the fact that we're on the verge of losing access to well over a decade of interactive content is lamentable. Preservation of art is crucially important, as our perception and appreciation of it changes over time--Vincent Van Gogh was only able to sell a single painting in his lifetime, yet they're now among the most famous and valuable in the world.

Almost more troubling than what we're losing is the sense of apathy expressed over it. The general consensus from tech journos seems to be that the phase out is overdue, as system security should be priority number one, even if it results in a loss of functionality. The impending obsolescence of Flash raises some serious questions as to the merits of new media art as currently implied. Specifically, if there is value in producing art for a culture that views it as disposable and treats it as such.