Talk:net.art

Merge with Internet Art?

I think this whole page should be merged with 'internet art', or at least be limited to a discussion of the origin of the term 'net-art'. The whole article is cluttered and confusing. Amanniste 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, AFAIK there is no distinction between "net.art" and "Internet Art", in between lies the story of how a name was popularized in its ASCII ART form. BTW both articles lack a big deal of information, like bibliography and exhibitions. jaromil (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of artists are constantly added to this article as part of the historical 'net.art' group. They are constantly removed because they are simply not part of the group, and most of them look like vanity links.'net.art' is not a genre, it is a name that a certain number of people in Europe and Eastern Europe gave to their network practice, which was united by political concerns and a networked critical communication. This group has a limited number of people (even if they did host or show other people's internet art). If you want to show connections between net.artists and other net (no dot) artists (Internet Art, digital art, networks art, etc.), I suggest that these artists are only *mentioned* as artistically or politically related to the concerns of net.artists. Someone did that for what they called a new generation of net.artists such as the Codeworks poets or Christophe Bruno, or jimpunk, etc. this was wrong but still, it remained. Please be aware where you are inserting these mentions and try to argue why you are making the connections (not only because they are famous or recognized by museums). It would be better I think for the critical value of the article.

Hi Mom! --Jjzeidner 10:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Martin Sjardijn since this person is not related to net.art by any means.

Changed the link from desk.nl to thing.desk.nl. The first is a commercial company, the second an arts portal. Wvdc 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The External Links don´t work ! I think the article is old and without any support [Uli] 09 12 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.79.135 (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is partially accurate but only focuses on Eastern European German and Russian artists. The name net.art is now in general usage but is not copyrighted. It is a generic term like for example Dot Com companies. The problem lies in the effort by these artists and their supporters to create a fake exclusive history that terms them the only people to work in this type of milieu. I tend to agree with user Amaniste that this article should be merged with internet art. It doesn't warrant a whole page. There are a number of glaring omissions to this supposedly historical thread that are actually offensive to artists who are working in digital, internet and new media art. And I don't mean offensive in a good way but rather as being incomplete and shoddy. That is probably the reason why people keep adding their names to this post. --14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Ghovagimyan (talk)

Imagine, George Maciunas given wikipedia in his time, the lemma Fluxus occupied by him, to sort on that page, who is a fluxus artist and who is rejected or thrown out ;-)). Wikipedia pages about artist groups, pop groups and bands are always in dilemma: Painful, when run by group/manager or fans, or demolished by people who try any dirt, to be part of the story or who feel offended by the unbearable amount of ego advertisement. I am no native english speaker and would not know the perfect form, to handle it, or maybe, when indeed it would be just, be able to bury the list of members without causing a war. I vote for either integrating net.art into Internet Art or to treat it like other fanpages in Wikipedia.--Fluss (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you come along, able to do it, drop a word here. --Fluss (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I am rather hopeless with code, I don't edit wikipedia much. However: I would like to make a plea for a separate page for net.art and Internet art. It is true that some confuse the term 'net.art' with Internet art or net art as a whole, and this can create issues regarding the work of other artists in the field. This however happens with many art terms. Art history is full of terms and names for practices that relate, but do not necessarily overlap. I think each of those terms deserve there own page, like every word deserves and even needs its own explanation in a dictionary. When it comes to Internet art, net art and net.art, the latter (net.art) definitely needs a separate page for the simple reason that this term is laden with a specific history, and is still used for that reason. In the mid nineties net.art was used for any kind of art practice online, independent of the artist in question. However, when the group from which the term was coined broke up (the group which also published and organized events under this term), artists working online were suddenly confronted with a avalanche of press publications on the 'death' of net.art. Because the work of artists with the Internet continued it seemed very unwise to keep using the term net.art, and it became rather common to reserve this term for a specific group or era. The problem at hand is that the term is narrowed down more and more to only these five or six artists, whereas it really refers to an era, an attitude, or a (very loose knit) movement if you will. People still use the term net.art to connect or refer to a specific era and attitude, in which tactical media and a critical attitude towards institutions of any kind were very important. It does not matter what one thinks of this, it is a fact that this practice stands out inside the field of net art. It therefore should have its own page, and it should be linked to pages about tactical media, nettime, rhizome, furtherfield and others. ∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.J. Bosma (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

here are a few links to the first net.art exhibition: "Representing the real net art"

1996 - Slides Of Street Graphics, Bunker, Internationale Stadt, Berlin, Germany http://irational.org/cgi-bin/cv2/temp.pl

1996 Netlab Bunker, Berlin http://www.videodokument.org/cosic/cosic.htm

Kunst als Position im Zeitalter globaler Technologien", Bunker, Albrechtstr 24, Berlin 1997 http://www.zhurnal.ru/netart/shulgin/cv.html

Dazu zählt etwa "Representing the real net art", ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt von Heath Bunting, Pit Schultz, Alexei Shulgin, Vuk Cosic (Projekt Refresh), die auf ihren drei Monitoren verschiedene Websites in einer Geschwindigkeit abwechselnd aufblinken und wieder verschwinden lassen, die an Flakfeuer erinnert; http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/3/3044/1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.140.166 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved and commented out the quotations on Postmodernism here in this section. While they are apparently quotes by net.artists, they don't appear to have much to do with the net.art article itself. Please review WP:QUOTE for an idea of how to incorporate them into the article or consider adding them to Wikiquote. Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 21:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Poietic Generator

Thanks Freshacconci for your request of reliables sources for my change in Net.art (introduction of the Poietic Generator.

The reasons of the change is here : Talk:Poietic_Generator.

As I mentioned it, the Poietic Generator was up and running before the Net.art mouvement. Sources can be found here :

• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-23
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-24
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-25
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-26
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-27
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-28
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-29
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-30
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-31

The Poietic Generator was also involved in typical events related to Net.art

• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-14
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-15

And it still exist after the so called "death of Net.art":

• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-21
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-22
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-33
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-34
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-35
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-36
• Poietic_Generator#cite_note-37

Urfortunately, I didn't find any external source witch mention all the facts mentionned in the wikipedia article Poietic Generator.--Toudou (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Net.art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504081712/http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/special/ame.html to http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/special/ame.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929135932/http://redsun.cs.msu.su/wwwart/refresh.htm to http://redsun.cs.msu.su/wwwart/refresh.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018143723/http://www.donforesta.net/ to http://www.donforesta.net/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://195.194.24.18/~donforesta/mambo/images/stories/other_docs/annexe_ga2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425191023/http://www.cap.eca.usp.br/wawrwt/textos/gilbertto3.html to http://www.cap.eca.usp.br/wawrwt/textos/gilbertto3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)