Response to “A History of Internet Art”

By looking into the history of Internet Art, I can see the content and format of Internet Art is closely linked to political and social circumstances. Initially, Internet Art begins in a transition age, information and technology evolve too fast, all of a sudden, the world are connected together and opened up. Liberation and freedom are the gifts from Internet.

Internet brings about connections between users from all over the world. With the development of internet technology. It spreads the idea of democracy and transparency of information. It is a true step of “civilization.” It is a huge progress of the movement of freedom of speech. From art composition perspective, internet is a new platform for opportunities to create more interactive and engaging programs that include more and more average people and audience to be part of the arts by contributing actions (“click” “hover” “scroll” “type”…) and emotions (happy, sad, angry, sympathetic…) to communicate with the web page, in fact, the audience are communicating with each other online in reflection of themselves.

I think the internet art involves more individuality and personality based on its nature of free-speeches and anonymity. Information and languages are translated into data lived forever on the internet, it never dies, but have it ever lived from the beginning?  

I looked up the example during class, the Mouchette program, (http://mouchette.org/index.html) and the Darko Maver (http://0100101110101101.org/darko-maver/). Both of them are fictional characters created by artists. It brings me back to the question about the question of authenticity and fakeness. In Mouchette program, where people can be “Mouchette” by providing personal information to the website. Here the boundaries of “real” and “fake” are much more obscure. I don’t think they still possess the distinction once they are living on the screen. How do people feel about a fictional or “fake” artist’s (Darko’s) death? Why so many people worldwide developed such a strong attachment to the girl who fantasizes suicide?

It is still a live program that people can response to a girl named “Mouchette,” it is a page of a fly flying all over the page, once you catch it, it will die because of you ‘clicked” it. She then asks you serious questions:

Here are some random responses presented by the web. Some of them are random and thoughtless, but some show real sympathy and regret towards the fly, which is a surprise for me.

 

 

I think the Mouchette program is provoking in a sense since it interrogates the meanings behind the online actions, in what ways we settle, and even anchor ourselves in the virtual world? Are we truly ourselves when talking anonymously? Are we trapped in the internet? How far are the physical distance of a person and a screen versus the distance of two lost souls sitting in front of the screens?

Internet Art to some extent magnifies the loneliness and desires of humans, it is both good and bad, or neither. I don’t know if it is a blessing or curse. But I doubt if it is that “every time you click on a link, something live happens. I still sense the web as having a sort of life, this live moment, because it can die. Only whatever can die can live.” (MICHAEL CONNOR A Girl Made of Language: Martine Neddam’s Mouchette)

Can Mouchette die?

Can all the tracks we leave online die?

I highly doubt it.

AMBER(YUTONG) LIN



Comments are closed.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.