While reading this article, I found it to be interesting in its approach to "art," as it genuinely came off as confusing, and yet was never really explained: particularly the fact that the article presents net.art (at least at first) as a free space in which people could do a variety of things on the internet - even sending emails was considered net.art. To me, it is kind of bizarre that the article would discuss "net.art" so heavily and interestedly without ever discussing the ways in which we describe and define art, given that the concept of net.art seemingly defies previous beliefs about what art is (and yet, nobody would argue that an email is actually art today).
One part though that personally resonated a lot with me was their mention of web domains and the anxiety of their being monopolized - as this has most certainly become the case, with certain domains receiving higher traffic than others (such as .com vs .net sites), and certain domains being attributed to certain types of websites altogether (such as .gov sites). The ideas mentioned when they discuss the 7-11 site are also kind of funny in relation to where the internet has gone nowadays - the idea of this fake site, with the name meant to mimic something well known, and the content consisting of garbage and random nonsense, is basically just the entirety of social media nowadays. I also really liked their brief mention of racial and social categories, in which very few of the materials or equipment that we use every day are ever scrutinized for their oppressive social relations - I found it particularly relevant as filming darker skin on film/digital has been notoriously difficult ever since the camera's invention, which on one hand reflects the supposed "beauty" and necessity to capture what is white, and on the other highlights the film industry and others' lack of awareness or care to address this very specific issue in their later products.
Comments