You never did

[Monte Davis]

DM > The emergence of a technology doesn't imply the emergence of a new
category of art, unless one wants to make it so.

Golly... it's almost as if the arts world put a premium on "newness" for
its own sake, isn't it? As if artists (and comments on art, and
dealers,and...) could gain stature and status by association with the Next
Big Thing?

Nah, tnat's marketing. That's the entertainment biz. That's fashion. Surely
that has nothing to do with

****ART****

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:00 PM, 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160122/efa7fde5/attachment.html>