While reading WEB WORK, there were a few aspects about the history of net.art that really stood out to me: spontaneity and the empowerment of artists that are typically underrepresented in physical art spaces. Anyone with internet access can make internet-based art whenever they like, as well as publish it, with very little effort. This is quite a different situation than physical art, which requires tangible materials, as well as a physical space in which to be displayed that is often difficult to obtain. I feel that this results in a unique "feel" in most net.art I've seen, where it almost seems like the artist is more directly communicating what's happening in their mind, as they aren't curating or adjusting their vision in hopes of getting into a gallery.
I also found the focus on activism throughout the article very interesting. It's no secret that the internet has always been a home for activists, but I'd never connected the dots that that would also involve the art created there. In hindsight, it feels perfectly natural--just as zines were a form of protest against the ways in which the art world can silence artists, so too is net.art. It's not perfectly accessible, but it is more so than most options, and your audience is potentially anyone in the world.
I find it funny that you (Corrina) mentioned how computer science majors get angry at this article, and I can see why with how hacker-y and virus-like a lot of the provided examples of net.art feel. However, I think this only fits in more with the idea of net.art as protest--there are always forces that seek to control chunks of the internet, because whoever controls the internet controls the flow of information. What better way to stick it to the powers that be than to break the conduit through which they influence the things we read and watch? Corruption of the media we consume can cause us to break out of it and truly consider it for a moment, and for some people, that moment can be life-changing.
Finally, the last thing that I think is fascinating about, and somewhat unique to, net.art, is that it is ultimately transient. This is somewhat touched on in the article, but we've also discussed it in class. Technology is always moving forward at a faster and faster rate, and while art also evolves alongside it, old art can be lost forever as technology is discontinued and cycled out. There are very few "Roman sculptures" or "Egyptian hieroglyphics" of net.art, because the "ancient" net.art of the past has been widely eradicated. Hell, the majority of links provided within the article itself lead to blank pages or to websites that no longer hold the art that once lived there.
However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Life, and our experiences within it, is also finite. The moment we live now will never be lived again, and I think to have art mimic that can be a very powerful thing. It forces us to tell stories about the art that was, to carry on its legacy and transform it into something new. The art still exists, but now in the form of story, idea, and memory. Because of this, I feel that net.art is likely, on average, more closely cherished and carefully remembered by those who experience it, because they know, unlike the Roman sculptures, it may very well not exist tomorrow. Net.art inherently encourages us to take art to heart and to hold it within us long after we see it, and I think that is a very beautiful thing.
Comments