Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:00:59 -0800
Subject: Re: News: WebArt Manifesto VOL a.
<html>
<font size=3>At 10:15 10/29/98 -0800, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
>>></font><font size=6>A quick response: isn't defining
"web art" solely in<br>
>>>relation to HTML too limiting to describe the WWW and the
internet?<br>
<br>
</font><font size=3>THIS <br>
>>>limits it solely to the mark-up language of the contents and
overlooks<br>
>>>all the interactive and communicative dimensions of the
net.<br>
>>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>>>George PUT AN IMAGE
HERE:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
>>It is a point we debated long hard. Eventually the view prevailed
that,<br>
>>since HTML is capable of enacapsulating the widest variety
of<br>
>>interactive routines through links, forms etc.; and because<br>
>>communicability is contextually inherent to HTML's
formulation, the<br>
>>definition holds good.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
the question is keeping the readers attention <br>
make scrolling fun<br>
that would revolutionize <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
your thoughts here:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
the web taste for images<br>
the web is an unfolding event.<br>
Events must be given up <br>
like young virginal <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
alll the
reset more
action<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
we need faster access to an already full market<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
the place<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
all the rest is debateable:<br>
>><br>
>>Incidentally, you missed something: "web art", as
you put it, is not<br>
>>what we were trying to define (that term will cover ANY art
communicated<br>
>>via the WWW, but which doesn't depend on HTML for its existence);
we<br>
>>think the nomenclature 'WebArt' is an important step in
identifying a<br>
>>new artform that DOES depend on HTML as its medium.<br>
>><br>
>>Broad adoption of this nomenclature is something that we hope
to<br>
>>promulgate....<br>
><br>
>I agree that an attempt at defining a term to apply this emerging
artform<br>
>is and important step. Separating 'art on the web' from 'WebArt'
is<br>
>important but I agree with George that this is too limited. If
WebArt<br>
>depends on HTML for it's existance what about, for example, email art
or<br>
>internet broadcasts? Both of these can be unique to the internet, but
not<br>
>necessarily the web, and like WebArt need to be differentiated from
art<br>
>from other mediums using the internet for transmission only.<br>
><br>
>I know this is kind of bickering about semantics, but basically what
I'm<br>
>thinking is that we need a bigger umbrella. The term Netart could
include<br>
>all these things and anything new that comes along. Art that
takes<br>
>advantage of any the internet's unique characteristics or
enhanced<br>
>capabilities would be a part of this new art form, WebArt would be a
subset<br>
>of this.<br>
><br>
>-Damon<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>===========================<br>
>Damon Holzborn<br>
>damon-AT-im.gte.com<br>
>damon-AT-zucasa.com<br>
><br>
>Zu Casa es su casa...<br>
><a href="http://www.zucasa.com/" eudora="autourl"><font size=3>http://www.zucasa.com</a><br>
<font size=3>>===========================<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --- from list
avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---<br>
> </font><br>
</html>
--- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005