[Nettime-bold] (no subject)

[integer@www.god-emil.dk]

>From: "Nicholas Hermann" <NHerman@hga.com>
>To: <nettime-l@BBS.THING.NET>, <Genius2000Conference2000@egroups.com>,
>        <info@emaf.de>, <alex@rhizome.org>

>I think the only cure to the problem Eryk talks about here is to start
>naming names and levying fines.  Eryk wrote this 2 months ago and no one
>said anything; now they're all grooving that "net art is dead."  
>
>Saying webart is dead may lead back to the clicks-and-bricks philosophy
>of art, which is what the academics need and want, rather than a
>Phoenix-like rebirth of genius.  Genius 2000 is not netart, never was,
>it's my special friend and can't be reduced.  
>
>Or, by saying na is dead do we throw open the door to
>everyone-is-an-artist?  Is it a way for the academics to save face under
>the onslaught of Genius 2000, Eryk Salvaggio, and nn?  After all, we are
>all three totally realized and successful and incorruptible.  (Perhaps.)

nn = ist korupt!bl. 







-
Netochka Nezvanova      - the spreading web like rhythm we towards inch with 
f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST   - each impression yes +?
@www.eusocial.com
17.hzV.tRL.478
                                                    e
                                                    |
                                                     |  +----------
                                                    |  |     <   
                                   \\----------------+  |  n2t      
                                                       |       >


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold