Read it this way:
Mainly, I am trying to say that I do NOT think .com inspired artists to use
the net as media, we have to look muchmuchmuch further back than that.
I also do not think that net(withorwithoutdot)art is dead, which did not
stop me from referring to an art piece and statement about the death as
indicator that there was definitely something alive and full of heady energy
before - namely before .com ...
All the best
> The constant declaration of death on net.art (AND confusing all
> online art with netdotart) almost makes me think there is a
> conspiracy of old school net critics and artists against all change
> in online art... ;-)
> warmest greetings from Dampsterdam,
> On 20 Jun 2007, at 10:08, _manu Luksch wrote:
>>> The momentum of the dot-com era infused media art with a heady
>>> energy, artists,
>>> many switching from analog to digital equipment, tried their hands
>>> at a range
>>> of newly invented art forms.
>> Maybe moma tries to re-write history?
>> Crediting .com for the emergence or a boom in net.art?
>> The way I remember some net.artists declared the genre 'dead' and over
>> during that time...
>> Like the grave stone exhibit at
>> http://on1.zkm.de/netcondition/start/language/default_e (I think in
>>> I would love to hear thoughts about this upcoming exhibition at MOMA
>>> in New York, from anyone who will see it, or anyone who wants to
>>> comment on its online presence!
>> ___________________manu Luksch______________/
>> _ mobile: __ (+43) 650 9977 988 _________________/
>> skype: manulita __ http://www.ambientTV.NET _____/
_ mobile: __ (+43) 650 9977 988 _________________/
skype: manulita __ http://www.ambientTV.NET _____/