dot.com implosion killed net art?

Posted by MTAA | Sun Jul 30th 2006 8:18 a.m.

Hi all,

re: the discussion about net art being
weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it

There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
closely.

As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.

I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png).

I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.

Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
seem to be happening.

Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
a while for it to be felt.

--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • marc garrett | Sun Jul 30th 2006 9:30 a.m.
    Hi T.Whid & all,

    >Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
    throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
    seem to be happening.

    As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or
    network, or Internet - net art will go on, no matter what other so
    called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think.

    The idea of net art and the death of it has come up so many times on
    this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it
    did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to
    want it to...

    marc

    > Hi all,
    >
    > re: the discussion about net art being
    > weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
    >
    > There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
    > cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
    > closely.
    >
    > As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
    > net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
    > bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.
    >
    > I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
    > by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
    > happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
    > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png).
    >
    >
    > I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
    > dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
    > companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.
    >
    > Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
    > throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
    > seem to be happening.
    >
    > Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
    > slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
    > dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
    > Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
    > a while for it to be felt.
    >

    --
    Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
    HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
    Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
  • MTAA | Sun Jul 30th 2006 10:48 a.m.
    On 7/30/06, marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
    > Hi T.Whid & all,
    >
    > >Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
    > throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
    > seem to be happening.
    >
    > As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or
    > network, or Internet - net art will go on, no matter what other so
    > called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think.

    Well sure that's inarguable. People will always find ways to express
    themselves in whatever media they like. IMHO, the important question
    is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
    relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
    curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
    when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
    is 'dead?'

    IMHO, mail art is more-or-less irrelevant. I don't want that to happen
    to net art.

    As far as the dot.com boom went. The art establishment got as caught
    up with the hype as everyone else so you saw more interest in net art
    during and right after the boom. I think that's pretty obvious. I
    guess I could do some research to prove my point, but I'm too lazy :-)
    I have anecdotal evidence however. Two of the biggest names in net art
    were earning a living at it during and after the boom but since have
    had to take on day gigs.

    Hope all is well Marc! You guys do good work :-)

    Best

    >
    > The idea of net art and the death of it has come up so many times on
    > this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it
    > did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to
    > want it to...
    >
    > marc
    >
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > re: the discussion about net art being
    > > weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
    > >
    > > There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
    > > cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
    > > closely.
    > >
    > > As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
    > > net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
    > > bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.
    > >
    > > I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
    > > by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
    > > happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
    > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png).
    > >
    > >
    > > I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
    > > dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
    > > companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.
    > >
    > > Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
    > > throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
    > > seem to be happening.
    > >
    > > Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
    > > slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
    > > dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
    > > Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
    > > a while for it to be felt.
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
    > HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
    > Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • ryan griffis | Sun Jul 30th 2006 2:07 p.m.
    > IMHO, mail art is more-or-less irrelevant. I don't want that to happen
    > to net art.

    i guess such a concept depends on the understanding of both "mail
    art" and "irrelevant" though... personally, i always had a hard time
    thinking about "mail art" as defined by the medium, and the same is
    true for me when thinking about "net art."
    Thinking about both within a larger process that could be called
    "networked" (ala Saper) makes more sense to me. Interesting "mail
    art" IMHO is not reducible to the medium, although it's not separable
    from it either.
    in my amateur opinion, the expansion of net art reflects a
    recognition of "net" as short for "network" not "Internet." Don't get
    me wrong, there's lots of formal and conceptual specificity to the
    Internet (and down into its widely used components of the web, email,
    IRC, etc) that HAS to be considered and can't be overlooked, at least
    not in a formal, political and historical context. But i would also
    propose that the Internet occurs within an even larger context, so
    does the art happening because of it - as twhid's account of the dot
    com boom/bust anecdotally assumes.
    Of course, there is a lot to be critical of here, especially as it
    relates to the conditions/demands of the "market" and notions of
    scarcity.
    The most interesting/relevant net art work for me, is that which
    situates the specificity of network technology within the systems
    that give it value (whether that's idiosyncratic, Political,
    tactical, sexual, whatever).
    So i can't see claiming that "mail art" is irrelevant... in some ways
    that project by Mandiberg that won a RHZ commission brings together
    "mail art"
    and "net art" by engaging the ecological politics of the virtual
    economy. In an updated anthology of mail art, i would include that
    project, even though it doesn't USE mail, it is dependent on it.
    no one asked what i thought, but there it is anyway :)
    ryan
  • marc garrett | Sun Jul 30th 2006 5:31 p.m.
    Hi T.Whid,

    >the important question
    > is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
    > relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
    > curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
    > when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
    > is 'dead?'

    Regarding collections and commissions - I know that the Tate Gallery in
    the UK collect various net art works. Which is a positive step in
    respect of on-line archiving and getting it seen to a wider audience out
    there. Also, groups like V2, have been supporting media art and net art
    in various ways.

    I am not so worried about net art as some, and think that net art is
    alive and kicking and that it is moving into different areas, networked
    and through different activities that may not immediately look like net
    art but, has its spirit and is influenced by what it still is and was,
    possessing contexts that work to inform this contemporary creativity.

    A good example is Node.London http://www.nodel.org/, which was a
    decentralized, networked, consensus based (most of the time) and used
    regions (areas, places) as nodes around the whole of London -
    representing net art and media arts for a month. To be honest - we were
    not prepared for the amount of people who would get involved to show
    their work - in the end we had too many venues and far too many events,
    artists through the month. On one hand, certain 'sack-heads' would go
    for the obvious and unimaginative retort and say 'hey - there was too
    much and you were not able to deal with the overload', my retort would
    be 'calm down and breath the creative air - you have just experienced a
    change in culture, and the doors were opened and now we are seeing more
    media art and net art than what we all thought was actually there.'

    By exploring open source, using its methodology and practise, which is
    strongly connected to D.I.Y culture and social contexts - London
    experienced something special and different for a change, and it was a
    change. There are some who would rather that it did not happen, they are
    the people who would prefer such creativity to stay contained, and not
    be seen. So that they could provide their own limited canon, regarding
    what it is that we are all involved in - by taking control of our own
    culture, we create more outlets for others to be let in and get more
    involved, which can't be bad thing...

    And of course, net art in its pure form is still being made.

    Such as:
    Slippage - http://slippage.net/

    OneSmallStep - http://flawedart.net/files/nospacelikemyspace

    Oil Standard - http://turbulence.org/Works/oilstandard/

    The Danube Panorama Project -
    http://www.danubepanorama.net/en/Main/About?from=Main.Index

    Glitchbrowser - http://glitchbrowser.com/

    There's loads more I could mention and probably should do but do not
    possess time to do so, but in other projects...

    I am not worried about history, only that in the recent past that the
    wrong people have been writing about it - if we make sure that we are
    doing our best to change things by either creating it, showing it,
    writing about it, talking about it, using it and getting on with it -
    then we can let history look after itself, for we are making history
    right now.

    I feel that sometimes (including myself here) that, we are actually more
    in control of our own histories than we originally may have thought. I
    mean, we are the 1st generation to have such networks at hand to help us
    contact others outside of our nations, to promote, explore dialogue and
    present and share our creative endeavours.

    If net art does die, it will die not because it is dead or killed by
    anyone (they are not worth listening too) but more because it lives via
    mutation, beyond its original forms/medium and reliving its essence
    through our own influencing agency.

    > Hope all is well Marc! You guys do good work :-)

    Shucks - watch out or i'll come over there and give you a big hug...

    Seriously, we work our socks off here and it's nice to get respect - it
    helps.

    marc

    >
    >> Hi T.Whid & all,
    >>
    >> >Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
    >> throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
    >> seem to be happening.
    >>
    >> As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or
    >> network, or Internet - net art will go on, no matter what other so
    >> called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think.
    >
    >
    > Well sure that's inarguable. People will always find ways to express
    > themselves in whatever media they like. IMHO, the important question
    > is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
    > relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
    > curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
    > when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
    > is 'dead?'
    >
    > IMHO, mail art is more-or-less irrelevant. I don't want that to happen
    > to net art.
    >
    > As far as the dot.com boom went. The art establishment got as caught
    > up with the hype as everyone else so you saw more interest in net art
    > during and right after the boom. I think that's pretty obvious. I
    > guess I could do some research to prove my point, but I'm too lazy :-)
    > I have anecdotal evidence however. Two of the biggest names in net art
    > were earning a living at it during and after the boom but since have
    > had to take on day gigs.
    >
    > Hope all is well Marc! You guys do good work :-)
    >
    > Best
    >
    >>
    >> The idea of net art and the death of it has come up so many times on
    >> this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it
    >> did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to
    >> want it to...
    >>
    >> marc
    >>
    >> > Hi all,
    >> >
    >> > re: the discussion about net art being
    >> > weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
    >> >
    >> > There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
    >> > cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
    >> > closely.
    >> >
    >> > As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
    >> > net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
    >> > bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.
    >> >
    >> > I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
    >> > by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
    >> > happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
    >> >
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png).
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
    >> > dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
    >> > companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.
    >> >
    >> > Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
    >> > throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
    >> > seem to be happening.
    >> >
    >> > Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
    >> > slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
    >> > dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
    >> > Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
    >> > a while for it to be felt.
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
    >> HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
    >> Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    >

    --
    Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
    HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
    Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Jul 30th 2006 7:27 p.m.
    > IMHO, the important question
    > is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
    > relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
    > curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
    > when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
    > is 'dead?'
    >
    > IMHO, mail art is more-or-less irrelevant. I don't want that to happen
    > to net art.

    Here is something I wrote in 1998 about the relation of Web art and mail
    art:
    http://vispo.com/guests/ClementePadin/ClementeIntroToOptionsOfMailArt.html ;
    this is an introduction to an essay called "The Options of Mail Art" by the
    Uruguyan poet, mail artist and net artist Clemente Padin who is still active
    in these arts. Or, rather, is still active in what is happening now, which,
    for some, is a mixture of both mail art and net art. In his essay, Padin
    argues against accepting the notion that what is relevant and what isn't is
    decided by collectors, curators, gallerists, etc.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Jul 30th 2006 8:14 p.m.
    i wonder how economic factors affect art in different places. for instance,
    in large cities, where everything is so expensive, i wonder if the 'value'
    (in the broadest sense) of something like net art is more inflected with
    economic associations than in smaller places. if an art does not or cannot
    establish an explicit economy of the art object and, further, the economic
    culture (dot com industry in this case) tanks, people in larger cities may
    find the art increasingly difficult to fund even indirectly, and this
    diminishment in the economic value of the whole activity results in less
    involvement all round in the art. which brings about also not simply a
    diminishment in the economic 'value' of the activity but a subjective change
    in the perceived 'value' of the art or activity.

    whereas in smaller places, where it's sometimes more possible to do things
    that aren't necessarily funded (if anything at all is to be done), the
    economic state of the art is not as influential. and people in smaller
    places can mistake the influence of economic imperative in larger cities for
    shallow, fickle fashion-mindedness whereas it's mostly people going where
    there are at least a few dollars to pay the rent and get paid for work in
    places that are outrageously expensive and, even at the best of times,
    artists have to spend more time paying the rent than making art.

    and, in smaller places, the big city collectors, curators, publishers,
    patrons and gallerists etc are more or less out of reach anyway, ie, that
    'economy' is 'irrelevant' to getting on with things, is no help. and,
    similarly, in the big cities, notions of the value of art that are not
    predicated on some sort of pseudo economic market value are insupportable by
    the above logic.

    or am i all wet on this?

    also, compare the 'economy' of visual art with literary art. ezra pound once
    remarked 'It's true there's no money in poetry. But, then, there's no poetry
    in money, either." the ragged 'economy' of poetry trades in things like
    teaching positions and who publishes your work and who writes about it, not
    at all in the monetary worth of the work itself, because everybody is
    penniless in that regard.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • mark cooley | Sun Jul 30th 2006 11:25 p.m.
    I think you make some nice conncetions here. I especially like how you conflate to some degree economic value and perceived aesthetic value.

    > this diminishment in the economic value of the whole activity results in less
    > involvement all round in the art. which brings about also not simply a
    > diminishment in the economic 'value' of the activity but a subjective
    > change in the perceived 'value' of the art or activity.

    As far as your statement on the lack of an economy of the art object whereas net art is concerned it might be interesting to look at conceptual art and early performance work as a way to understand how they were brought into the major art institutions and what was gained and lost in the process. i think there is an uneasy alliance that happens here. If we are talking conceptual and performance of the 60's and 70's (as an example) much of the work resisted the aesthetics, politics and economics of the modenist art museums, but found itself being absorbed into those same institutions eventually anyway. Artists were able to support themselves and the genre gained widespread acceptence as "Art", yet much of the original point of these works was hidden or lost and replaced with an institutional narrative. It is now possible, for instance, to open an art book and see Kosuth's One and Three Chairs discussed with a formalist vocabulary. I think I may have taken this off in another direction. Sorry. It would be nice to see more written along the lines that you have laid out here.

    Jim Andrews wrote:

    > i wonder how economic factors affect art in different places. for
    > instance,
    > in large cities, where everything is so expensive, i wonder if the
    > 'value'
    > (in the broadest sense) of something like net art is more inflected
    > with
    > economic associations than in smaller places. if an art does not or
    > cannot
    > establish an explicit economy of the art object and, further, the
    > economic
    > culture (dot com industry in this case) tanks, people in larger cities
    > may
    > find the art increasingly difficult to fund even indirectly, and this
    > diminishment in the economic value of the whole activity results in
    > less
    > involvement all round in the art. which brings about also not simply a
    > diminishment in the economic 'value' of the activity but a subjective
    > change
    > in the perceived 'value' of the art or activity.
    >
    > whereas in smaller places, where it's sometimes more possible to do
    > things
    > that aren't necessarily funded (if anything at all is to be done), the
    > economic state of the art is not as influential. and people in smaller
    > places can mistake the influence of economic imperative in larger
    > cities for
    > shallow, fickle fashion-mindedness whereas it's mostly people going
    > where
    > there are at least a few dollars to pay the rent and get paid for work
    > in
    > places that are outrageously expensive and, even at the best of times,
    > artists have to spend more time paying the rent than making art.
    >
    > and, in smaller places, the big city collectors, curators, publishers,
    > patrons and gallerists etc are more or less out of reach anyway, ie,
    > that
    > 'economy' is 'irrelevant' to getting on with things, is no help. and,
    > similarly, in the big cities, notions of the value of art that are not
    > predicated on some sort of pseudo economic market value are
    > insupportable by
    > the above logic.
    >
    > or am i all wet on this?
    >
    > also, compare the 'economy' of visual art with literary art. ezra
    > pound once
    > remarked 'It's true there's no money in poetry. But, then, there's no
    > poetry
    > in money, either." the ragged 'economy' of poetry trades in things
    > like
    > teaching positions and who publishes your work and who writes about
    > it, not
    > at all in the monetary worth of the work itself, because everybody is
    > penniless in that regard.
    >
    > ja
    > http://vispo.com
    >
    >
  • manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic | Mon Jul 31st 2006 4:08 a.m.
    Our meditations about interlaced,influence and connections between state in
    society and it's reflection on "Art Computing"so unmistakable ignored on
    Rhizome_Raw that we've finally came closer to trap/mistake we made in our
    own praxis.If we talk about difficulty to see and accept something
    obvious/close/near(that hurt!)how could we ask exactly the same from other
    people.Other words:Arno Becker and parallel with Nazi and contemporary West
    art (with special turn on"Art Computing")was wrong,same way it was wrong to
    transfer whole world guilt on Eskimo and Amazonian tribes.Now we have proof
    of their innocent and we could kill some children(today three years old girl
    from Lebanon good train and indoctrinate could endanger American interest
    on 'East'.)
    What's our point?Our point's that if you couldn't,or if you refuse to
    'take'our opinion about things(you are so high that our'words'hardly reach
    even close to you,and if we are lucky it happen that's just mumble of
    something alien,dangerous and threaten for you?But what about "Freedom of
    speech"?Isn't it same time right to be listen and visible?We're free to
    scream in prison America(that mean your responsibility is undoubted)make of
    our,and many other countries around the world,so we suppose that's only
    voice you expect to hear from,outthere-nowhere.Oh,yes,you have some employee
    philosopher(Zizek for example),or artist(Cosic for example),mainly from
    small countries anxious to reach West by short way.That's why Zizek take(it
    was few years ago hundreds thousand of $,to "criticize"American politics,but
    not so hard,it's like sado-mazo game,not snuff...).We don't want to waste
    our precious time on other one.
    So,Soros(George or Georgy)make ""our"" art scene in Serbia with his money
    and our 'people',same as in many country in region.It'(or should we said
    'he')is American product,and your responsibility for people like Soros is
    undoubted.You could say what's wrong with donation for art?Nothing except
    that it wasn't 'art',it's always ideology,and influence on main strategic
    processes in some country.Soros,now,have concession on biggest cable net in
    Serbia.And there's some money even for you-undoubted.Same as you drive with
    stolen oil, my money's in your pocket(Twid know that very well).So,lets open
    cart:Rhizome.org loose essence and basic idea of rhizome in(D&G)sense,which
    mean that everywhere,in every place could growth something
    big,small,extraordinary or average,but it can growth and our reason for
    being on Rhiozome.org is that fact,this trace of freedom.
    Now Rhizome.org is one of instrument of American hegemony more open than
    ever.Manager of org.Lauren Cornel in her interview mentioned only two names
    from Europe,which is proof that she have mission to destroy idea of
    Rhizome in America,or she's just (politically) naive...We doubt in second
    option.
    Delleuse&Guattari idea is not something untouchable and sent.actually it's
    good to discus about basic thing in their philosophy,but let us from other
    countries be at lest fair treatment.Rhizome.org is big and it's
    infrastructure is good and strong enough to hold out artist and other people
    from all around the world.Rhizome.org don't need to be one more toy in
    bloody hand of American administration.
    MANIK
  • MTAA | Mon Jul 31st 2006 7:38 a.m.
    Hi Jim,

    These are very good points. They were sort of drifting around in the back of
    my head as I wrote the post about the relationship of the dot.com frenzy to
    net art's development.

    Back in the dot.com days corps were flush, over-staffed & poorly managed.
    This led to a good environment for working on one's own creative projects.
    One would have lots of time on one's hands while in the office, lots of
    resources (computers, bandwidth, software) and no one keeping an eye on you
    :-)

    On 7/30/06, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
    >
    > i wonder how economic factors affect art in different places. for
    > instance,
    > in large cities, where everything is so expensive, i wonder if the 'value'
    > (in the broadest sense) of something like net art is more inflected with
    > economic associations than in smaller places. if an art does not or cannot
    > establish an explicit economy of the art object and, further, the economic
    > culture (dot com industry in this case) tanks, people in larger cities may
    > find the art increasingly difficult to fund even indirectly, and this
    > diminishment in the economic value of the whole activity results in less
    > involvement all round in the art. which brings about also not simply a
    > diminishment in the economic 'value' of the activity but a subjective
    > change
    > in the perceived 'value' of the art or activity.
    >
    > whereas in smaller places, where it's sometimes more possible to do things
    > that aren't necessarily funded (if anything at all is to be done), the
    > economic state of the art is not as influential. and people in smaller
    > places can mistake the influence of economic imperative in larger cities
    > for
    > shallow, fickle fashion-mindedness whereas it's mostly people going where
    > there are at least a few dollars to pay the rent and get paid for work in
    > places that are outrageously expensive and, even at the best of times,
    > artists have to spend more time paying the rent than making art.
    >
    > and, in smaller places, the big city collectors, curators, publishers,
    > patrons and gallerists etc are more or less out of reach anyway, ie, that
    > 'economy' is 'irrelevant' to getting on with things, is no help. and,
    > similarly, in the big cities, notions of the value of art that are not
    > predicated on some sort of pseudo economic market value are insupportable
    > by
    > the above logic.
    >
    > or am i all wet on this?
    >
    > also, compare the 'economy' of visual art with literary art. ezra pound
    > once
    > remarked 'It's true there's no money in poetry. But, then, there's no
    > poetry
    > in money, either." the ragged 'economy' of poetry trades in things like
    > teaching positions and who publishes your work and who writes about it,
    > not
    > at all in the monetary worth of the work itself, because everybody is
    > penniless in that regard.
    >
    > ja
    > http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • Eric Dymond | Mon Jul 31st 2006 9:29 a.m.
    but what killed video art?
    Eric
  • Lee Wells | Mon Jul 31st 2006 10:55 a.m.
    DVD

    On 7/31/06 11:29 AM, "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca> wrote:

    > but what killed video art?
    > Eric
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
  • marc garrett | Mon Jul 31st 2006 11:26 a.m.
    ART

    >DVD
    >
    >
    >On 7/31/06 11:29 AM, "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>but what killed video art?
    >>Eric
    >>+
    >>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>+
    >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
    HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
    Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
  • Eric Dymond | Mon Jul 31st 2006 11:43 a.m.
    the net art boom might not have been as loud as everyone remembers:
    http://209.32.200.27:8080/read?390,20
  • patrick lichty | Mon Jul 31st 2006 12:27 p.m.
    > but what killed video art?

    Video never died, it merely became assimilated into canon.
  • Steve OR Steven Read | Mon Jul 31st 2006 1:46 p.m.
    With all this discussion of things getting 'killed'...things dying, dead, crashing, busted, taken over...I'm beginning to get scared. This art world surely is a dangerous place.

    But seriously...

    Would be interesting if a correlation did exist. Thesis/Essay anyone?

    I think artists didn't want to be 'limited' anymore to the set of materials commonly used for net art (browser interfaces and languages). Not that these materials are anywhere close to exhaused. But I have to admit that the 1990's HTML and Flash toolsets were/are fairly limited. We live in a world of meta-meta-tools. Tools creating layers and layers of more tools. Conforming to toolsets that allow for viewability via http is limiting yet still challenging, like painting or writing. This is one reason I love net art.

    I remember putting terminal-browser-based net art into galleries on monitors. Most people I don't think could engage with it very well. People who leave their desk and enter a gallery want something different from what their desk had to offer. Thus, as mentioned by others here, gallery-net-art-whatchamacallit has evolved into new directions that reflect its present canonization and integration. I still think plenty of desk-net-art is still coming out though, whether its called net.art or screen art or desk art or cubicle art.

    I remember VRML as being super cheesy. What ever happened to that?

    -Stevie
  • manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic | Mon Jul 31st 2006 2:59 p.m.
    The impotent questions

    With all this crap if you're into conceptual art discussion of things
    getting 'killed'...things dying, dead, crashing, busted, taken over...I'm
    beginning to get scared other artists,
    curators, gallerists, etc etc. . This art world surely is a dangerous
    place.Video never died, it merely became assimilated into canon.

    But seriously... is still active in what is happening now?

    Would be interesting if a also makes these ideological demands correlation
    did exist. Thesis/Essay anyone? History and cannons, and institutions.
    Everyones hands at home where as ten years ago you still needed access to an
    Avid, Media 100, SGI machines that, unless rich or in school made it a
    the 1990's HTML and Flash toolsets were/are fairly limited. We live in a
    world of meta-meta-tools. Tools creating ...
    But seriously... is still active in what is happening now?
    Conforming to toolsets that allow loud as everyone remembers: ART! Why? I
    feel that what you are really looking for.What their desk had to offer?
    Remember puttingsome degree economic value I am not so worried about and
    perceived aesthetic value.
    terminal-browser-based net art into galleries on possessing contexts that
    work to inform this contemporary creativity.I too disagree with such a call.
    It's here every day. p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player,
    remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah. monitors.
    Most people I don't think could engage with it very well. People who leave
    their desk and enter a gallery want something different .Thus, as mentioned
    by others here, gallery-net-art-whatchamacallit has evolved.
    Net.art,different genres and fusions.
    Genres pop up every day, or screen art or desk art or cubicle art.Sorry to
    be so silent - have been working on a very large (132 pp.) among other
    things. I understand the frustration of being.

    What ever happened to that?
    Yes - I understand the frustration of being caught in a bonsai trap.
    But seriously... is still active in what is happening now?
  • Jim Andrews | Tue Aug 1st 2006 5:29 a.m.
    > As far as your statement on the lack of an economy of the art
    > object where net art is concerned it might be interesting to
    > look at conceptual art and early performance work as a way to
    > understand how they were brought into the major art institutions
    > and what was gained and lost in the process. i think there is an
    > uneasy alliance that happens here. If we are talking conceptual
    > and performance of the 60's and 70's (as an example) much of the
    > work resisted the aesthetics, politics and economics of the
    > modenist art museums, but found itself being absorbed into those
    > same institutions eventually anyway. Artists were able to
    > support themselves and the genre gained widespread acceptence as
    > "Art", yet much of the original point of these works was hidden
    > or lost and replaced with an institutional narrative. It is now
    > possible, for instance, to open an art book and see Kosuth's One
    > and Three Chairs discussed with a formalist vocabulary. I think
    > I may have taken this off in anot!
    > her direction. Sorry. It would be nice to see more written
    > along the lines that you have laid out here.

    Well, one thing that can be said for the galleries is that they are in advance of the publishers, for the most part, concerning net art and the digital more broadly. I'm basically a writer and fled with gratitude to the Net when the Web opened up. Because I had little company in the sort of art where I live. Because I also work with the visual and publishing such material is difficult for publishers. And expensive. Because I also am a programmer and audio guy and can attempt to put it together. Because I can publish my work as well as I have the skill to do on the Web at relatively little financial cost. Because books in Canada have a hard time getting outside Canada or having more than 300 copies printed whereas the Net is widely international. Because neither Borges nor Burroughs could have been Canadian writers. Because the other artists I'm interested in tend to be interested in the Net and their work is on it, often. Because it's possible to take poetry in directions on the Web that poetry has rarely suffered. Because it still thrills me occassionally. Because we are creating a world wide web of art and ideas accessible to increasingly large portions of the world and we have the opportunity to make that worthwhile for people now and perhaps for the future. Because my daddy taught me there's nothing better for the world than communication between people where before there was ignorance and fear of the other and the unknown. Because we need to learn how to feel and think with this technological extension of our voice and writings and cognitive abilities so we can create something other than grasping, poking claws with it. Because computers should expand our humanity, not simply diminish it. Because I like books but my work usually doesn't fit well inside of them. Because, as a writer, my focus is on publishing, mainly, rather than performance or installation, etc.

    It seems that net art has typically had more involvement from visual artists than from writers though, of course, it tends to turn visual artists toward writing and writers toward some involvement with the visual. But publishers aren't quite sure what to make of digital literary art if couldn't fit in a book. And will remain that way while they focus singly on print.

    If net art is 'out of fashion' in media art/visual arts now, perhaps the writers are still in some sort of process of exploration of it. Perhaps the net is more frequently apt for writers than for visual artists. In that there are all sorts of visual arts that don't fit on the screen well or at all, whereas the screen is more accomodating to wide ranges of approaches to writing. Computers are language/logic machines. They are implicated in language down to the machine language and theoretical level (computer science students study a course sometimes called 'language and the theory of computation').

    I've read some of Kosuth's writing. He's a strong writer. He said the concrete poets were stupid about language. He isn't a visual poet but a visual artist of conceptual art. Which is to say he isn't so much interested in the 'shadows on the wall' as the concepts that eddy mysteriously among the shadows. And it seems, reading his writing, that he is/was also rather formidably Marxist. But my whole knowledge of his work is within the last eight years, so I'm not sure what has been lost in the process you describe. I have read his collection of writings Art After Philosophy and After, but it's been a while. Does he condemn formalism of some type?

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Maschine Hospital | Sat Aug 5th 2006 7:31 p.m.
    The dot.com was a toin-coss in order to generate energy.
    Net.art is for the most part a complete and total failure.
    There is no recollection of a single intelligent use of
    computers in the past decade. Isn't that sad?

    On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, T.Whid wrote:

    > Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:18:11 -0400
    > From: T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>
    > To: rhizome <list@rhizome.org>
    > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: dot.com implosion killed net art?
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > re: the discussion about net art being
    > weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
    >
    > There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
    > cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
    > closely.
    >
    > As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
    > net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
    > bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.
    >
    > I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
    > by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
    > happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
    > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png).
    >
    > I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
    > dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
    > companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.
    >
    > Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
    > throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
    > seem to be happening.
    >
    > Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
    > slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
    > dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
    > Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
    > a while for it to be felt.
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    o
    [ + ]

    + + +

    | '|' |
    _________________________________________
    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Aug 6th 2006 11:42 p.m.
    > The dot.com was a toin-coss in order to generate energy.
    > Net.art is for the most part a complete and total failure.
    > There is no recollection of a single intelligent use of
    > computers in the past decade. Isn't that sad?

    if that is really how you feel, it's sad for you.

    also, success and failure, in matters of art and life, are ambiguous.
    there's winning and losing, but which is which is sometimes confusing.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Eric Dymond | Mon Aug 7th 2006 12:27 a.m.
    Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    > > The dot.com was a toin-coss in order to generate energy.
    > > Net.art is for the most part a complete and total failure.
    > > There is no recollection of a single intelligent use of
    > > computers in the past decade. Isn't that sad?
    >
    > if that is really how you feel, it's sad for you.
    >
    > also, success and failure, in matters of art and life, are ambiguous.
    > there's winning and losing, but which is which is sometimes confusing.
    >
    > ja
    > http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    most of the art I remember for the past 10 years is Net Art... was there something else going on? Is there a new painting, film, video that I somehow missed?
    Nope , I checked, the new and interesting stuff was net art, and it came in large undulating waves.
    Eric
  • Eric Dymond | Mon Aug 7th 2006 12:27 a.m.
    Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    > > The dot.com was a toin-coss in order to generate energy.
    > > Net.art is for the most part a complete and total failure.
    > > There is no recollection of a single intelligent use of
    > > computers in the past decade. Isn't that sad?
    >
    > if that is really how you feel, it's sad for you.
    >
    > also, success and failure, in matters of art and life, are ambiguous.
    > there's winning and losing, but which is which is sometimes confusing.
    >
    > ja
    > http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    most of the art I remember for the past 10 years is Net Art... was there something else going on? Is there a new painting, film, video that I somehow missed?
    Nope , I checked, the new and interesting stuff was net art, and it came in large undulating waves.
    Eric
  • Rob Myers | Mon Aug 7th 2006 4:49 a.m.
    Quoting manik <manik@sbb.co.yu>:

    > Everyones hands at home where as ten years ago you still needed access to an
    > Avid, Media 100, SGI machines that, unless rich or in school made it a
    > the 1990's HTML and Flash toolsets were/are fairly limited. We live in a
    > world of meta-meta-tools. Tools creating ...
    > But seriously... is still active in what is happening now?

    Yes, net.art has not disappeared, it has just become universal. Anyone
    can make
    it, and make it well, it is not exclusive any more. And for all the populist
    noises that the artworld makes, exclusivity is what fine art is about.

    > It's here every day. p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player,
    > remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah. monitors.

    Yes, net.art is not a frontier any more. Painting an empty landscape
    when there
    are skyscrapers as far as the eye can see is unrealistic. You either have to
    start sketching glass and steel or "get your motor running, head out on the
    highway" to find a new frontier.

    It would be an amusing irony if, for net.art, that frontier is the gallery.

    > Most people I don't think could engage with it very well. People who leave
    > their desk and enter a gallery want something different .Thus, as mentioned
    > by others here, gallery-net-art-whatchamacallit has evolved.

    Like an aging music fan the gallery system needs cool in a way it can
    understand. This is "stadium net.art". The crossover will look distorted to
    those who don't make it, they will be left grumbling about how the authentic
    scene has been corrupted by AOR men, like punk rock in LA in 1982.

    - Rob.
  • Salvatore Iaconesi | Mon Aug 7th 2006 5:23 a.m.
    netart is not dot.com

    dot.com's existence might have helped by making new media more visible, by
    making technologies available, by enabling other communication channels

    netart sits there as the proof that humans need to express themselves through
    art, just as they need a mystical dimension, just as they need love, hate,
    feelings...

    the media doesn't matter, after all... humans always used the media they
    had available, no matter what it was.

    internet's still alive? so will be netart.

    at least one programming language exists? software art will be there,too.

    etcetera..

    s

    >-- Original Message --
    >From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    >To: <list@rhizome.org>
    >Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: dot.com implosion killed net art?
    >Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:42:00 -0700
    >Reply-To: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    >
    >
    >
    >> The dot.com was a toin-coss in order to generate energy.
    >> Net.art is for the most part a complete and total failure.
    >> There is no recollection of a single intelligent use of
    >> computers in the past decade. Isn't that sad?
    >
    >if that is really how you feel, it's sad for you.
    >
    >also, success and failure, in matters of art and life, are ambiguous.
    >there's winning and losing, but which is which is sometimes confusing.
    >
    >ja
    >http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Aug 7th 2006 6:35 p.m.
    > > Manik said:
    > > Everyones hands at home where as ten years ago you still needed
    > > access to an
    > > Avid, Media 100, SGI machines that, unless rich or in school made it a
    > > the 1990's HTML and Flash toolsets were/are fairly limited. We live in a
    > > world of meta-meta-tools. Tools creating ...
    > > But seriously... is still active in what is happening now?
    >
    > Rob said:
    > Yes, net.art has not disappeared, it has just become universal. Anyone
    > can make
    > it, and make it well, it is not exclusive any more. And for all
    > the populist
    > noises that the artworld makes, exclusivity is what fine art is about.

    Universal? In what sense?

    "Anyone can make it, and make it well..."

    This requires some scrutiny, doesn't it. Certainly there are many ways to
    approach net art. For instance,

    > > It's here every day. p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads,
    > multi player,
    > > remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah. monitors.

    plus shockwave, flash, java, processing, dhtml, or desktop-based c++ or
    delphi etc apps that are wired to the net. programmer net artists usually
    produce apps using these tools, and often use the former quoted bunch as web
    services, ie, the app may use google to get images or texts or videos etc.

    once you say 'programmer net artist', you're not talking about 'anyone'.
    being able to program and program well, concerning art, is quite rare.
    usually it requires several years of study in computer science and many more
    of practical experience, though school is not always the way artists (or
    even professional programmers) learn their theory, their data structures,
    theory of computation, OOP methodology, etc. Programming is like
    architecture in that you have both to get your head around quite a technical
    body of material and be able to *feel* with those technical languages.

    going the way of the non-programmer net artist is not as technically
    forbidding, but i imagine it is also extremely challenging. there is quite a
    bit of stuff that 'anybody can do' and is as common as spam. to distinguish
    one's work when it is brother to spam is a job. even when the work is not
    spam. anything that 'anybody can do' is going to be done at mass-spam-media
    levels and is going to be common as spam. this is where 'early adoption' of
    technologies such as blog, vlog, etc becomes important to non-programmer net
    artists. not so much 'to be first' as to strike before people become numbed
    by the approach having been done to death.

    then there are those--programmers or not--who do not seek to innovate but to
    either approach it tactically or otherwise find/create the depth of a form.

    so, in a sense, yes, 'anyone can do it and do it well'--in the sense that
    you don't need a gallery or expensive hardware or a big budget--but like any
    art taken seriously, it is a life to do it really well.

    i took a detour in 2003-2005.5 in that i did a lot of non-net art
    programming as an employee. for performance. for installation. lots of
    expensive hardware. and that was interesting. i learned a lot. but it also
    gave me a renewed sense of the value of net art. net art is for the world.
    whereas the work i helped make in that detour was intensely local. small
    audience. not extrordinarily well-connected to what is going on elsewhere in
    the same field. often re-inventing the wheel. net art has to run on all
    sorts of other computers around the world. non-net art usually runs on at
    most a few dedicated machines and there are so many ad-hoc technologies
    involved that the work is going to need those particular machines and that
    particular hardware five years down the road. whereas net artists look at
    work they did years ago and try to keep it running in the new environment
    (new versions of browsers, new versions of plugins etc). also, programming
    interesting net art is as challenging as programming offline. in net works,
    the programmer has to get her head around network operations and all that
    opens up. that's a brilliant challenge. all that asynchronous stuff that can
    go down or fail in any number of ways. conditional callback structures. o
    there's lots of frontiers there still.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Rob Myers | Tue Aug 8th 2006 7:16 a.m.
    Quoting Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>:

    >> Rob said:
    >> Yes, net.art has not disappeared, it has just become universal. Anyone
    >> can make
    >> it, and make it well, it is not exclusive any more. And for all
    >> the populist
    >> noises that the artworld makes, exclusivity is what fine art is about.
    >
    > Universal? In what sense?

    In the sense that:

    > "Anyone can make it, and make it well..."

    ;-)

    > once you say 'programmer net artist', you're not talking about 'anyone'.
    > being able to program and program well, concerning art, is quite rare.

    Many people can do a bit of Actionscript or Javascript, many more people than
    could do Lingo a decade ago. I find the net a limiting medium for the display
    of code (I've only done 2, maybe 3 pieces of net.art in ten years because of
    this), and I am not convinced that struggling with udp is of great interest to
    end users / viewers if they cannot see it on their screen. I agree that depth
    of engagement with code is rare, though, and you are *absolutely* right that
    there is more to be done in code-based net.art .

    My point, which in many ways is congruent to this, is that YouTube distributes
    video in a way that would have required root access to a server a decade ago,
    that anyone can generate a website for poems or images using WordPress (and/or
    flickr), and that streaming media is now if not easy then at least attemptable
    using webcasting . Net publishing and display has been democratised,
    many tasks
    that were previously coding challenges are now free commodities.

    So net.art needs to move beyond commodified forms, which means moving into
    deeper engagement with code. But there is a tension here, as coding is not per
    se artistic. And not every net.poet or streaming video artist may want
    to code,
    and possibly they should not have to. How they will stand out against the
    background radiation of an intenet now utterly saturated with media I don't
    know, though.

    - Rob.
  • Eric Dymond | Tue Aug 8th 2006 11:32 p.m.
    I don't see how the Net Art crisis is any different than the crisis facing every art form. All art forms are under siege, and every art form requires bandages and a bed in the county hospital.
    But the patient keeps wanting to get up and leave.

    Eric
  • Maschine Hospital | Sun Feb 4th 2007 12:18 a.m.
    On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:

    > The dot.com was a toin-coss in order to generate energy.
    > Net.art is for the most part a complete and total failure.
    > There is no recollection of a single intelligent use of
    > computers in the past decade. Isn't that sad?

    Specifically abuse of "wound" as a form of quasi-communication,
    as referent to St. Peter / Tyr miscommunication abuse generated
    during WW2.

    _________________________________________
    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Your Reply