Tom Moody
Since 2002
Works in New York, New York United States of America

Discussions (231) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

What?


With the Net Aesthetics 2.0 panel in mind I went back and looked at a series of posts I did on "the blog as delivery system for art" vs "stationary sites that critique the web."

I reposted some of those arguments from 2004, as well as some discussion from around the time of the last Net Aesthetics 2.0 panel in 2006, here: http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/05/23/web-art-20-discussion-afterthoughts-3/


Vijay,
I have been thinking about your 4chan vs Mouchette distinction--it's a good one--and hope to have something up on it eventually.

Kids, get off my lawn and turn off those embeds!

DISCUSSION

What?


It would be good if these threads were linear, so people had to deal with what's on the table instead of picking and choosing who to respond to by going up-thread. It's very rhizomatic but it's also a mess to read.

DISCUSSION

What?


Thanks, Tracky, that is very clear. I would like to amend your statement...

the newer net art is more about processing cultural input than it is about the dimensions and the possibilities of the web

...to say that it's not just something your generation of artists is doing. Damon's list bugs me for being so generation-specific. Some of us have been practicing and preaching the presets gospel for years. The difference is it's done with an element of conscious opposition to old-guard net art practice, much (not all) of which is over-intellectualized and looking back to '60s (text-centric, gallery-centric) conceptual art for models. I prefer my Fluxus on the fly (hence the interest in 4chan) not through stating a proposition of what a piece is going to be and then "proving" (ie, illustrating) it.

DISCUSSION

What?


Tracky and M.River above:

Tracky quote: “And even though it's clear by now that net.art doesn't equal today's net art and the rules are that there are no rules and uncool is the new cool and all that”

M.River reply: Yeah, I think that is where I kinda sta[r]ted with all this in my mind. They don’t equal but then again they are not that different. I’m just trying to figure some of the “ifs” and “thens”.


What? To the extent this exchange can be parsed, it seems like a descent into mushy relativism.
(1990s) net.art and today's net art are completely different. There are rules for both. It's not just about "cool" and "uncool." Why don't you address Damon's lists?
He put some thought into that dichotomy and you're just meandering around in mush-land.

DISCUSSION

What?


Several people in this thread will be participating in a Rhizome panel next month on Net Aesthetics 2.0, including at least one person Eric Dymond has never heard of. I learned a lot and appreciate hearing others' thoughts.