Talk:Net.art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

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)