Talk:Internet art
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
| 1 |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between24 August 2020 and14 December 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Sgibbs44.
Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)00:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Fluss05:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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?Phr07:29, 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 - 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 cannot perform the function of a link directory. This is quite established.Haakon15:20, 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!0waldo00:25, 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 withWikipedia: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.Haakon12:56, 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 ...0waldo00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To resolve the disagreement over whether the (in my opinion) rather large link collection should stay or go, Irequested 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 withWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not". See the discussion in the section above. Discuss.Haakon10:02, 24 May 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 (seeWP: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.
Tyrenius17:12, 24 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 areDreamies,Bill Holt andIRCAM. Two of these have articles already. For the ones that don't, then a link in external links makes sense.Tyrenius17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 fromArtforum 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—Precedingundated comment added23:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good piece about net art in the latestNew Yorker (February 10, 2014 issue): "Man and Machine" by Susan Orlean.--Brainy J~✿~ (talk)15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onInternet art. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)03:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between26 August 2024 and7 December 2024. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Adamgon (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated byDjaber1 (talk)20:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
