My own work has always been largely invisible so no risk of it getting invisibilsed, though I see what you mean about history being rewritten and net art erased from history. On 8 May 2016 11:49, "helen varley jamieson" <he...@creative-catalyst.com> wrote:
> it is sad news indeed, i hope it will be archived somewhere. and written > about. i agree with giselle, it's vital that the early history of net.art > gets recorded - multiple times, and in multiple discordant voices. we see > so many situations of younger artists "discovering" things that we were all > doing 10+years ago; of course everyone should and will make their own > discoveries, but not so that previous work gets invisibilised. > > john, such documentation won't change the traces in our bodies :) it's for > those who don't have these bodily traces. > > h : ) > > On 8/05/16 4:55 09AM, John Hopkins wrote: > > On 07/May/16 18:23, giselle beiguelman wrote: > > one more chapter of net art 1.0 blowing in the wind. > things like that convince me that is urgent to write the history of net > art > before the 2.0 hype. > > > Nah, don't reify that which cannot be re-presented. Leave the net to its > vaporous, unstable, transient, and vital be-ing... Best to have the traces > of human networks left only in the body... and this too shall pass away... > > jh > > otoh: I wonder if they will archive the web site somewhere? have to > contact Helen about that... > > > -- > helen varley jamieson > he...@creative-catalyst.com > http://www.creative-catalyst.com > http://www.upstage.org.nz > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
