Talk:Internet art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Macwhiz, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 21, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Contemporary Art (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Contemporary ArtWikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary ArtTemplate:WikiProject Contemporary ArtContemporary Art articles

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgibbs44.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsorted text[edit]

Although all the terms around internet art and net art don't translate 1:1 between German and English, it may be of interest for german reading net art and internet art freaks or writers, how the german Wikipedia makes a difference between "Netzkunst" (broader meaning than Internet Art) and "Kunst mit Netzwerken" (≠ Art with Networks). Describing the first as being rooted in the more technical context of early electronic networking and the latter as being rooted in the more sociological approach, as it was basic for Ray Johnson or Robert Filliou.--Fluss 05:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

external links section[edit]

A lot of the links are to online galleries and collections of traditional art (including computer art). These are only internet art in the sense that the internet is used to transmit the art. But internet art per the article is art where the internet is the art medium in its own right, and not merely a distribution channel. Etoy was given as an example. By analogy, "TV art" might refer to art using TV as a medium; an example might be a giant sculpture made out of TV sets. It would not include normal movies that were merely shown on TV. So I think the external links for this article should be cleaned up, with the traditional-art links moved to some other suitable article. Thoughts? Phr 07:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wholeheartedly - Lewiscode

Personally I found the long list of links extremely useful, and a great deal more useful than having no links at all, as it is currently - 10 May 2006

Perhaps you are looking for DMOZ and not Wikipedia? :-) Haakon 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - but can't this resource perform more than one function, and save a lot of people a few additional clicks? - 17 May 2006

You are right in one point, but what if some artists might use internet in order to transmit their art? - Dania

No, Wikipedia can not perform the function of a link directory. This is quite established. Haakon 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon, you are not the end-all-editor here! This freekin section is about internet art for gadz sake and people that come here may want to read about it and then go look somewhere else! You are so freeking lame sometimes! Just let the links be here like they were before! What in the freek does it matter to you anyhow! I'll tell you what it matters! My internet art site was listed and you nuked the whole freekin section because I was listed! That's your agenda! 0waldo 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only agenda is to better the quality of Wikipedia articles. In my opinion, the huge link collection detracts from the value of this article, and conflicts with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (see section "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"). But it seems this opinion is not the general consensus, so I will let go and I have reinstated the link collection. Haakon 12:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon: What? you are letting it stay here? why? I thought that It was crap? Usually, you just do whatever you want - I'm totally stupid but we all know that but I'm still bumfuzed over this ... 0waldo 00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the links being restored? This is an open invitation to SPAM! Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links, but there seemed to be much resistance over it, so I reinstated them. I agree completely that it is a huge bunch of spam, so if you want to be the one taking flak for removing them, please do and I will certainly defend it. Haakon 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Request for Comments needs to be filed. We cannot simply change Wikipedia policies like that. Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments[edit]

To resolve the disagreement over whether the (in my opinion) rather large link collection should stay or go, I requested comments. Some people have said that they found the links useful, while my stated opinion is "the huge link collection detracts from the value of this article, and conflicts with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not". See the discussion in the section above. Discuss. Haakon 10:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links on this page conflicts with link style used on nearly every other article - there is also a clear consensus that Wikipedia should not be a collection of links. 70% of this article are links which is entirely too much. My suggestion: Remove all links and point to a relevant repository of links in a External links section, per usage on other pages. H e nrik 12:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All links should be removed and an alternative link to the DMOZ directory or similar provided. Also, considering that many of these links could be considered as "vanity", things are even clearer. Asterion ^{talk to me} 12:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, WP is not a link collector, no links unless they are notable in some way that isn't covered in WP Sunhawk 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with general points so far. I would say there is, as with every article, the case for selective helpful links, if (note - if) there is consensus over these between involved editors. The big list of links at the moment is no doubt useful for some people, but not very helpful for people who want to read an encyclopedia article about internet art, and it is quite clearly established in Wiki that the latter is the point of this project.

I also note that some of the talk involves unnecessary personal comment (see WP:NPA) rather than addressing the issues. I commend Haakon's refusal to create an edit war, despite disagreeing with what he saw as the current consensus, and also Asterion's action in calling in external editors to get a wider opinion. The aim is to create a good informative article on this topic, and I hope that it will proceed with goodwill with that in mind. The external link stops the Dreamies wikilink. With red links - well either they're not important enough for an article (in which case best not to wikilink) or an article will get written.

Tyrenius 17:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no new comments had been posted for a while and all those who had said something seemed to be in favor of removing the collection I have now been bold and done so. H e nrik 16:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another thing: I agree with the point above that a selection of links may be helpful, but I feel it to be best to start with a clean slate at this time. Useful links can always be readded. H e nrik 16:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better — like an article in fact. However, I note that there are external links embedded in the text, which is not recommended. They should be stripped out and wikilinked instead. Examples are Dreamies, Bill Holt and IRCAM. Two of these have articles already. For the ones that don't, then a link in external links makes sense. Tyrenius 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have a link on that page that'd link to another page that'd be a collection of links ? I mean it's current practice in some sections of wiki to have lists of elements such as famous norwegian writers (replace norwegian and/or writers by whatever term you like)....and it works just fine although it is still a collection of links ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurekastreet (talk • contribs)

After the clean slate, people have now been adding "useful" links for three years, and the link directory was growing out of control again. I cleaned the slate again. Haakon (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

I'm going to attempt to make some improvements to this article in the next little while, if anyone cares. For one, there are some simple references that can be added and sourced to inline citations - specifically, the article from Artforum in 2000 [1] by Rachel Greene is an important early article that it seems some of the content is being summarized (poorly) from. Also, I was curious about the Dietz quote - and it has been widely reproduced because of this Wikipedia article. I found the original source, and it's not *quite* right on. It's here: [2] and he uses that quote in reference to the specific online exhibition and artists he's curated, not necessarily referring to net.art in general. Also, at the Dietz source, I found some of the other content - and again, very poorly summarized or barely-paraphrased. Heads up! Deadchildstar (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an addition to the History and Context section that aims to address the role of social networking platforms in the creation and distribution of internet art- the historical context of the surf club in relation to social networking platforms is especially important and is only really adressed as a "see also" link. - SIGnificationNETwork —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker article[edit]

There's a good piece about net art in the latest New Yorker (February 10, 2014 issue): "Man and Machine" by Susan Orlean.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]