Art F City
by Art Fag City on June 4, 2008 · 13 comments
MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/net_art_2_5_private_beta.html ]
On the term Net Art 2.0 "The main problem with using a software versioning paradigm to distinguish art periods is the implied progression."
I’m not so sure that I see the use of the “2.0″ designation as an indicator of progress, so much as a reflection on what “The Web 2.0″ stands for: networks of users, rather than computers; new standards (dhtml, css v. html) and yeah, social media and novel cures for excessive cultural output.
The artists creating the “2.0″ movement are not responding to the same internet culture that the 1.0 movement was responding to, they aren’t using the same techniques or the same philosophies or tech.
That 2.0 happens to be a younger generation with new ideas is coincidental, I feel. And to be part of an “old guard” without yet being 30 is kind of concerning, but I’m gonna have to get used to it (or start looking at the Web in a whole new way, every so often).
“Net Art Episode II: Attack of the Clones” ?
Just kiddin’ folks…just kiddin’.
re: standing for what “Web 2.0″ stands for.
I did address this in the piece, the folks that came up with Web 2.0 meant it as an upgrade. Businesses were learning to use the web ‘correctly.’ One can’t get away from it in software versioning. Sure, sometimes there’s a software version that’s a regression, but generally software upgrades are meant to make the software better.
Progression in art history is a serious error IMHO. Is Warhol ‘better’ than Rauchenberg? Is Rauchenberg better than DeKooning? It’s very problematic.
I’m not arguing that the younger net artists aren’t doing things in a different way, I’m just arguing with the label.
Previous post: Fresh Links!
Next post: Fresh Links!
Advertise on AFC with Nectar Ads