In response to Wilfried and Simon what we are seeing here is probably not
the death of these forms of practice
but their evolution. In these terms network art doesn't describe a
technology determined form of art, but rather
describes or perhaps becomes a metaphor for a wide range of approaches and
strategies that artists are developing
that attempt to make sense of the contemporary situation. Interestingly for
me this bleeds out of media art practice
and has (I hesitate to use this phrase) "infected" more mainstream art
worlds.

Peter Weibel described this as "Extension of Competence" at this years ars
electronic in which artists operate in
"interdisciplinary and intercultural contexts". In my understanding of
this, and through a personal observation of some
of the new forms of practice (both within and without new media contexts),
we can describe this expanded conception of network art as an
artistic methodology by which artists are able to *link* between diverse
domains (business, technology, science etc.) as
and when needed, in response to the particular demands of the project they
are working on.

bw
tom corby




 one in which we make links between diverse languages (, biological) and
processes to generate new forms. Juxtaposition and impregnation.








> I think Wilfried is too impatient. There are quite a number of artists
who,
> over a decade ago, adopted the net as their medium, or as one of their
> media, still producing new and vital work with it. For every retired
> net.artist there is an equivalent old-age pensioner deciding to take late
> retirement. They say it is a trend.
>
> Art is like wine. It needs time (of dear, I sound like a certain Dutch
beer
> ad).
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> Myron Turner wrote:
>
> > Subject: "Netart", definings
> >
> > A rather despairing post arrived this morning from Wilfried Agricola de
> > Cologne, who most of you will know as the organizer of javamuseum.org.
He
> > has clearly committed an enormous amount of energy, time and resources
into
> > this project but has decided to call it quits and for reasons which are
> > apropos of our recent discussions. I thought I would excerpt some of
what
> > he said; I hope that I am not misinterpreting.
> >
> > After JavaMuseum published. . .really a lot of "netart" features,
> > I personally still doubt, that "netart" represents an art genre of
> > its own. It is still not accepted widely as a specific form of New
Media
> > art working, not even the term "netart" is defined in an approximately
> > acceptable way, and it is going round continously in circles, as the
> > active artists and their working remain in a kind of ghetto'
> >
> > He feels that the typical netart generation "does not last longer than
> > two or three years" and that those artists with longer term commitments
> > only "confirm. . .this general impression." If I understand him
correctly,
> > he is arguing that because artists don't stick with it, they don't give
it
> > enough
> > time for serious exploration:
> >
> > due to the fact that "netart" as it is practiced currently, represents
> > only an intermediate phase in nearly any art working. . .there is no
> > real continuous art working possible which would be able to explore
the
> > entire potential of the Internet for artistic purposes and look for
the
> > innovative. . . .So, the motivations to explore seriously and
> > continuously what net based art could represent, are existing for most
> > artists only during a kind of intermediate state.
> >
> > He concludes:
> > from my personal point of view the current structures of "netart"
have,
> > if any perspectives at all, only short term, but no long term
> > perspectives, and remain therefore in a really desolate state.
>
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>
> Research Professor
> Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University, UK
> http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/
>
> Senior Research Fellow
> Computer Laboratory
> University of Cambridge
>