After reviewing some of the best art on the Internet, I started to conclude that the Internet was an art medium in the same way walking is an art medium. Although a few tenacious individuals can make the medium of walking work, it seemed like Internet art would become as widely used as, say, the hologram. It took me a long time to recognize art on the Internet for two reasons: it didn't look like art and often wasn't called art. Had some of my favorite sites been labeled as "Internet installation art" or "Internet performance art" I probably would have experienced my modest epiphany sooner. Most artists earn my admiration from their overall bodies of work instead of a few heroic "masterpieces." Similarly, the Internet sites I enjoy are greater than the sum of their components. Barton's Den of Iniquity is such a site. The creator never called it art, but it certainly felt that way. As Mojo Nixon said, "It's just a matter of inflicting your own personality on the material." The Web is not an immutable object; rather it is a symbolic system in constant flux. Notwithstanding the similarity of the dominant portals, the Internet has qualities that they obscure. Artists can work in modes that contribute to a popular understanding of the new digital media. Considering the important role such media now play in the formation of social ideas, values, and expectations, it is reasonable that artists and intellectuals concern themselves with how people find information. Despite their present visibility, there is no guarantee the fragile autonomous zones that have emerged online will be easy to find in the future. In societies accustomed to a constant stream of fresh media offerings, a well organized effort would be necessary to compete with the richer commercial portals, some of which already evoke the specter of art-free culture. Probably these artless centers can be pushed, at least a little, to the margins. I think that no WebArt piece made so far is strong enough in concept for the larger public. One reason is simply the fact that people, even the professionals, don't master the necessary skills to produce a master piece. Also, connecting artistic content with this new tool seems to be difficult. Even if someone seems to master few technica l tricks, the concept is weak and not something one could watch twice. I think that partly this is because webartists do art on the web by the rules of the technology that is available, while it should be done the other way around. First one should come up with a strong concept, not caring hill of beans of what is the medium and what is possible, and only then make sure that the idea, the conept will be made into reality. However many beautiful ideas stop here because people don't master this medium. But progress is happening... Martha wilson, editor of the magazine Framing, once said "The issue is totally outside the character of activity of a commercial gallery" I'd say that, if so, the galleries can only blame themselves. It is true that this medium is delivering "art works" regardless of any gallery institutions, but then the galleries have to understand that you cannot do marketing on webart the way you do on paintings. From art frieks and collectors you should go to young people and mass media, and "cheaper culture". It's not taking away the business as usual from the galleries, but it's just offering a new avenue to have big WebArt shows (like the movie theatres), or go online with the products. But it takes good products (which are coming...) and change in the way of thinking. But perhaps we have to wait for the next generation...? In the mid-1980s Frank Stella wrote, "In order to guarantee itself the completeness and wholeness that defines or better delimits art, abstraction has shunned reality -- that is, it has shunned real, created space in favor of artificial, illustrated space". The answer to this problem is not a return to conventional illusionistic space, to Albertian perspective; but some kind of turning around is in order. Certainly invention and inspiration are called for. Still, he is not alone in resisting a return to perspectival space as he seeks ways to resolve the felt limitations of abstraction. At the time Stella was writing, interactivity was beginning to attract the interest of artists. Interactivity is an invention that can add a semblance of depth to abstract space, without perspective. If a Mondrian image is made interactive, does it become representational? What should it represent? The working space of the Internet artist encompasses the technical infrastructure and popular software used to convey cyberspace and telepresence. What limits and powers enframe artistic activity within this new space? At the turn of the century, the centrality of the museum in the presentation of art has been challenged by the proliferation of online art. The relationship between Internet artists and the public is mediated as much by portals and search engines as by museums. The importance of the portal warrants more system-analytical work that acknowledges this change of cultural affairs. Like the earlier move from the walls of the church to the canvases of the collector, the emergence of the Internet as a venue for art has confronted artists with non-traditional issues and problems. While Web directories and search engines may seem like somewhat banal subject matter for art, they form among Internet users a kind of common experience. However artless and conventional the portals may appear, they constitute provocative strategies of representation. Bringing people together? Yeah, sure, and that is a very important point in the internet itself and its development - independent WebArt pieces don't necessarily have to take that into account in any way. The concept of "bringing people together" and "interactive" are too simple concepts to stand alone as a core for a webart piece. They are fast onsumed ideas.... Finding good ideas, good concepts for the art work (webart in this case) has not changed into anything, the possibilities of the expressions just have changed along with the audience and distribution.
Assignment 1
