www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

[Nettime-bold] Re: net art history
trip dixon on 14 Feb 2001 20:28:36 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: net art history


>>>>>ALso, I am sure this has been part of your consideration,,,,

but as an art exists, so must a viewer...  I have not read much myself on 
how this   contemporary net.art viewer is being defined>>>  ...but i have 
Defined it myself as the user-viewer.

       this user-viewer is the critical observer of the events that occur 
within the interface of the technology in question: in our case,   the 
increasingly middle-class technologies of the internet:   the Cyborg 
extensions of our bodies that allow us to communicate with each other via 
electronic machine technology:::::::::::


     The user-viewer is one who critically observes and participate swithin 
an artwork that requires both technological user interactivity, and viewer 
interpretation. The typical user is a sender-receiver, but the user-viewer 
is simply the critical, observational, sender-receiver<<<<-----


but maybe I'm just talking bollocks.

}}}}}}}}}Any input?
{screen.print())()){{{{<<<<
}

&&&&&&trip



((&cultural appropriation in sound:::  http://www.mp3.com/tripDixon  ))





>Josephine Berry wrote:
>
> > I could not have expected you to realise this (since I didn't explain), 
>but the subject of my thesis *is* the group of artists that are loosely 
>defined by the term 'net.art', and so the lack of a broader description is, 
>to quite a large extent, intentional.
>
>I am very glad I reacted to it then, because it was totally unclear. I
>think it is very important you add this piece of knowledge to your
>thesis and every part of it that you publish, as it now looks as if you
>are covering net art history in general. With all the confusion we have
>already seen around the subject on various lists and considering the
>hunger for these kind of general insights and clarifications it is very
>likely a text like yours could accidentally be used and spread as study
>material representing the -entire- history of net art. Which it does
>not. I must say that your clarification has made the text a lot more
>sympathetic to me, even if I have criticism still. It is also quite
>clear we need a lot of more specific or specialised researches of
>different area's of net art.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold {AT} nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold