On 3/28/07, Tilman Baumg=E4rtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tilman, I don't know why my message appeared so many times; sorry!
> >But getting to specifics, I was curious by what she meant saying that > >"Second Life seems to offer a Renaissance Perspective." If she means a > >"renewal of the sort of pranks she said she admires, then that would be > >"welcome, but isn't SecondLife, having a fairly narrow audience, a very > >"different kind of context? Or does she think the current press coverage > >"of "SL will allow her work and other's to jump the >borders, as it were? > > Well... > > as an interviewer I assume that she means what she says. I thought this myself-- right after I clicked to send! > As a reader I would think that this was meant to be a clever remark > that is supposed to make her come across as a new and improved > version of the net.art of old. This was partly what I meant to ask; I suppose it's a worthwhile ambition except it seems to assume that her work exists in the same world in the sense that she assumes people will make that connection. That's what led me to comment on the narrow audience. But then, in the 90s, did everyone recognize different net.art projects as part of the same field fairly quickly, or did that come later when curators and juries started defining categories? > I also think that SL is such a small place compared to the utopian > space of the internet of the 90s, that the net.artists explore. But I > might be biased. Since to even get in to look at anything in SL people have to register and immediately start worrying about money--for clothes, hair, textures, defense shields and what have you--I would agree that SL is both very small and _far_ from utopian! > Anyway, she was very happy about the whole net.art comparison. Who wouldn't be? ;-) > I hope that answers your question (that was asked out of interest or > in the name of research?) Yes, thanks. I asked out of both; I'm always interested if someone is doing something new and interesting online, but also I've been wondering whether we're seeing a fundamental cultural shift. Has something changed that makes the kind of net.art that arose in the '90s, that was prankish and sly, less likely to be created? I haven't heard of much being done lately, and I similarly noticed when I was teaching at MIT a few years ago, a real downturn in the frequency of hacks on campus, which I think most faculty rather regretted. I'm not sure if the reason would be a change in the potential audience or in the potential artist/pranksters or both. --Of course maybe I'm just completely out of the loop lately, which is yet another reason to ask! Cheers, Kim # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: firstname.lastname@example.org