[spectre] debate net art and art criticism

[dsi]

>
>
>Debate:
>
>net art and art criticism
>
>
>
>Meanwhile, however, artists working primarily with the internet have
>remained rather exotic creatures in the art zoo. Why? Are these artists
>misunderstood?



They don't produce enought money.


>Does net art also demand a new set of criteria?


money.

also see= the failure of the "copyleft ".



>What is
>the relevant context in which these works should be discussed and
>analyzed; that of contemporary visual arts, or rather the context of the
>internet itself and the turbulent developments of the new communication
>and information technologies?



It is a wonderful adventure that we all, are experiencing.
Is like having found a new color in the rainbow.
But the language is still in his paleolithic shape.

But does the market cares about it?
Or they rather cares about the value of a single art work?
And if the single art work is reproductible in infinity, then... is 
worth nothing.


Sorry I don't mean to be cynical. As a matter of facts, I am very 
naive -indeed.


>
>It begs the question how art criticism should deal with these phenomena.


copyright.

Dilemma should be "shall we accept the fact we live in the Occidental word?"
It could easily turn into a "Existential Crise and Nightmare 
Extravaganza's Paradox" debate.
EC & NEP Anonymous.  -Big hit group in town.


>Is internet art or "net art" simply another art form as there are many
>others, a genre, which then can be a normal part of regular art
>criticism?


Just stop calling it net.art.
Art is art.
The one we're talking is more likely "conceptual art",
at least at the stage of the technology in use nowadays world wide.

"net.art" definition  is a self-ghetto!

Sound like women when they celebrates women's day.

daddy's day
mama's day
S. Valentine's day
etc
(a.k.a.) minority's day


>>>>>>>>Burka in the DNA>>>>>>>>>>>


>  Do these works in the admittedly special context of the
>internet require their own criteria and their own discourse, in order
>that they can be appropriately understood and valued? Or do we maybe
>need a new way to look at art in general?


ask the market.

The ABC on "understanding the art market":
http://www.digitalsistersindeed.org/under/under.html



dg/dsi