Once again, I'm indebted to your great eclectic "ear" for web sites. I'm probably the ideal victim of autodidactic's wit, since I've known 'Hamlet' well, having taught it, but it's been over 10 years since I've looked at it. So, there was an immediate sense of familiarity, but not immediate recognition.
I also like kartoo.com
, a search engine with witty self-awareness.
As to your qualificaton about "expansive installations" pieces--I agree: I think of architecture as a metaphor for virtual space, not as an actual space where installations could be mounted. I like the metaphor because architecture, despite its potentially massive physicality, or perhaps when it is most massive and cannnot be taken in all at once, requires an internalized imaginative grasp of space. And it's an internalized imaginative beholding of space that, I feel, is the defining characteristic of networks as aesthetic constructions.
I hope that this doesn't sound like too much of a stretch--but it helps me to view the net in the idealistic terms that have always appealed to me.
curt cloninger wrote:
> I find the architecture analogy more desirable than the gallery
> analogy, unless you mean some expansive installation piece that takes
> over the context of the entire gallery. Otherwise, the gallery is
> *not* what net art wants to be -- discrete piece after discrete piece,
> neatly labeled and formally contextualized as art.
> I'm guessing that artists are more free to work/exploit the network
> and new media when they aren't always having to fit their work into
> some contexted "art" box (as alexei shulgin could have told us in
> 1995). For example, only one of these pieces is self-aware "art"
> (florian kramer's "permutations"), yet the rest of the pieces are
> interesting along the same lines:
> So maybe visiting http://www.kartoo.com
and searching for "curt
> cloninger" presents a better example of my "net.art" than