Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:12:02 +0100
From: "Gerald O'Connell" <goc-AT-gacoc.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: News: WebArt Manifesto


In message <Pine.3.89.9810220909.A6005-0100000-AT-bloor>, George Free
<aw570-AT-freenet.toronto.on.ca> writes
>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Gerald O'Connell wrote:
>
>> You will find the WebArt Manifesto at
>> 
>> http://r2001.com/webart/manifesto.html
>> 
>> 
>       Just quickly read your manifesto and haven't yet looked through 
>the gallery. A quick response: isn't defining "web art" solely in 
>relation to HTML too limiting to describe the WWW and the internet? This 
>limits it solely to the mark-up language of the contents and overlooks 
>all the interactive and communicative dimensions of the net.
>
>George

It is a point we debated long hard. Eventually the view prevailed that,
since HTML is capable of enacapsulating the widest variety of
interactive routines through links, forms etc.; and because
communicability is contextually inherent to HTML's formulation,  the
definition holds good.

Incidentally, you missed something:  "web art", as you put it, is not
what we were trying to define (that term will cover ANY art communicated
via the WWW, but which doesn't depend on HTML for its existence); we
think the nomenclature 'WebArt' is an important step in identifying a
new artform that DOES depend on HTML as its medium.

Broad adoption of this nomenclature is something that we hope to
promulgate....

Gerald O'Connell

http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/


     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---