You never did

[John Bailey]

I think in these instances it's art that uses the internet as a medium
- the instances mentioned use Twitter, Google Earth etc - but it's
more like saying painting or drawing than Impressionism or Art Brut.
Not a movement, just an objective descriptor.

It's way better than "new media" being employed to describe anything
involving digital stuff. The hell is new media?

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:00 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why must we conceptualize something called "internet art?"  It seems an
> argument based on a a shaky premise.  Technologies exist.  They may be used,
> but the art produced isn't an art of the technology, unless that's what the
> artist wants it to be.  The emergence of a technology doesn't imply the
> emergence of a new category of art, unless one wants to make it so.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Perry Noid <coolwithdoc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A--and the rainbow planes look like the Vintage paperback cover to GR
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:28 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a great short video on internet art with heavy reference to
>>> Pynchon. Worth a watch. Thanks Toby.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Toby Levy <tobyglevy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > https://aeon.co/videos/digital-art-can-help-us-see-and-judge-the-internet-before-it-consumes-everything
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l