It’s an age-old question that is still being answered. Where do the lines between art, technology, and culture begin and end when it comes to creation, enjoyment and distribution? And who gets paid in the end? As 2026 emerges these forces continue to intersect in not just music and entertainment, but also in fine art.
This topic emerged as a hot topic at this year’s CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas on January 6-9. For lovers of music, fine art, and independent creative culture, CES 2026 quickly revealed something familiar – a battle over openness, access, and who really benefits when new platforms emerge?
Music fans know this story all-too-well. For decades, the music industry operated as a closed, analog system where distribution and discovery were determined by a hierarchy of tastemakers, radio gatekeepers and record company executives deciding which artists reached the public. Then came digital disruption, Napster and the iconic MP3 Rio Player (that iTunes “took” their technology from), followed by Apple’s iPod and iTunes. This new technology may have cracked the door open for more artists and discovery, but it was still a tightly controlled ecosystem run by higher-ups.
Spotify defined the next musical evolution by taking the lead for being the most popular platform-agnostic choice for music listening and discovery. Music could live on any device and discovery exploded. Independent artists gained access they never had before, but that openness came with trade-offs, especially for legacy artists. It revealed that music consumption and discovery still put most royalties in the hands of gatekeepers and tech CEOs versus the artists (enter Taylor Swift!).
That same tension is now playing out in another creative medium – visual art. For most of modern history, visual artists faced even steeper barriers than musicians. Galleries, dealers, advisors, and institutions controlled access to collectors, the art itself and audiences. For many artists, including photographers, painters and digital creators, breaking through remained nearly impossible without insider connections. Despite the rise of social media and NFTs, that basic structure hasn’t changed much… until now.
Fast forward to this year’s CES where nearly every major TV manufacturer announced new models emphasizing “art modes” or built-in art platforms. Samsung, LG, TCL, Hisense, and Amazon all made clear that the living room wall is becoming a new kind of gallery. That’s good news for art appreciation with more people seeing more art, more often.
Yet each of these art platforms are closed and tied exclusively to a specific brand’s hardware and ecosystem. Each requires its own subscription and manages personal photos, videos, and artwork separately. And crucially, none of them offer a true artist-centric content program that allows independent creators to meaningfully participate or earn. Sound familiar? It’s the iTunes model all over again. And who got rich off iTunes (check your parent’s stock portfolio – it wasn’t the artists!)?
Yet again in 2026, we will keep our eye on this new closed system that intertwines technology with culture and artists. History shows us that closed platforms can work for a period of time. That is, until consumers hit friction points from juggling multiple subscriptions, numerous apps, and vast content libraries that quickly become tedious (as experienced in the decoupling of cable). History suggests that users eventually gravitate toward simpler, more flexible solutions.
That’s where open, platform-agnostic systems come into play. Services like Liquid Canvas approach TV art the way Spotify approaches music with one subscription, any device and no hardware lock-in. You can manage art, personal photos, videos, and even NFTs across different hardware and platforms without starting over each time you buy a new screen. This type of utility and user experience matters to consumers.
What makes Liquid Canvas particularly interesting is its independent artist program where artists apply and, if accepted, can add their work to a growing streaming art gallery available to subscribers. When their art is displayed, they earn money. It’s not a gallery or a brand licensing deal. It’s more like a streaming model applied to visual art that pays artists.
Music fans will tell you that the introduction of streaming platforms didn’t solve every problem, but they did create pathways that didn’t exist before. Discovery became global, while niche audiences became viable. There is hope that the same dynamic could emerge for photographers, painters, and digital artists, many of whom have never had a way to monetize their art by being displayed in private homes at scale.
The TV manufacturers are claiming that their investment in art modes increases awareness, demand, and appreciation for art in everyday spaces, and that benefits the entire ecosystem.
But history suggests closed systems rarely define the long-term future. Open platforms can win the long game, not because they’re perfect, but because they prioritize flexibility, scale, and participation. This allows them to grow faster, attract creators and evolve with cultural desires. For music fans who watched Napster become Spotify as CDs and vinyl become playlists, and radio become algorithms, the parallels are hard to ignore.
Music, visual art, photography and film are all cultural expressions. When one medium becomes democratized, it sets a precedent for the others. As a music lover, it’s hard not to root for platforms that support independent creators. Watching open systems like Liquid Canvas compete with closed, hardware-locked art modes will be key in the year ahead because we all long for a world where artists get paid and we can enjoy the art we love without a high premium that makes the rich richer.
To know more, check out www.LiquidCanvas.art.
