![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote re New Materialism from source titled 'Post-Internet Materialism' in the first response: "recent sculpture that can be described as neomaterialist or post-internet" and later: "even a few years ago there was no concept of post-internet, and the concept of new materialism was largely absent from the contemporary art-world". There is considerably more as the entire article is about the so-called New Materialism of Post-Internet art. My summary in the article could be improved, but it is factually an interchangeable concept.
Quote re New Aesthetic from source titled 'What Is Post-Internet Art? Understanding the Revolutionary New Art Movement': "The influential blog The New Aesthetic, run since May 2011 by writer and artist James Bridle, is a pioneering institution in the post-Internet movement." and: "Much of the energy around the New Aesthetic seems, now, to have filtered over into the "post-Internet" conversation." My take is basically Bidle tried to 'brand' an idea and it just came out over time being called Post-Internet by most of the practitioners. Thus: same idea with 2 names. That is very clear in this second one. Again, if you have a suggestion for rewording, please go ahead.
Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
lists grow, anyone can stick a name under "notable" artist, and do so without adhering to WP:NOTABILITY, having a Wikipedia article does not qualify someone as "notable."
see also Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
worth noting too, MOS rule for music genres equally applicable to art movements (genres), per lists, "Music genre articles should not contain lists of performers. A separate list page may be created." Acous mana 17:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
having a Wikipedia article does not qualify someone as "notable."except that's exactly what notability means on Wikipedia. Challenges to notability of subjects occur on their respective pages (and I see you've copy/pasted a delation rationale to prod several of the names on this list -- fair enough). For the sake of including on a list like this, what we need is for them to be notable, yes, but also sourcing to make sure they are indeed an example of this, and it looks like this list has that sourcing. If you want to challenge specific names, you're welcome to, but it's not the right way to dispute their notability. Perhaps some of the regulars at artist-related deletion discussions ( Possibly and Theredproject come to mind) can take a look at the prods. I do see that some were created by SPAs, and that some are overly detailed, but from a glance at them earlier today it seems like at least a couple are likely notable. I'll refrain from getting involved there, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
User:ILIL What I'm seeing here is borderline edit warring over the last few days about the inclusion of Parker Ito. Claims to Soapboxing don't make sense to me other than what appears to be ironically your soapboxing, i.e. advocating against a particular artist. Your removal of a cited reference and, in my opinion pretty decent image which demonstrates what the article is about (essential on any art page), image of Ito's work was bold, but the back and forth is unneeded. I've contributed a bit to this article, to improve it to encyclopedic standards, but I don't know everything. If you have a strong case why Ito is not a post-internet artist please elaborate below. The citation mentioned is not a mere 'blog' in my opinion but the website for a curator and arts writer. It's her opinion, it's primary source, but I see little difference in any other academic or 'trade' writing. A lot of this page, and similar art pages, relies on these types of specialist opinion. Additionally, Ito has been featured in explicitly Post-Internet shows. Again, in regards to WP:SOAP, I have no dog in this fight, I'm interested in making this a better article and it's not clear how your edits are doing that. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 02:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
References
One of the big dynamics within post-internet art was that artists could create “offline” exhibitions and share them online. So small art galleries in Richmond VA, Berlin or Mexico City were suddenly addressing a global audience. The most important audience for a sculpture would be the online audience for it, so the artist would consider it in relation to how it would be documented. The blogs VVORK and Contemporary Art Daily were a big part of this, and later the rise of Insta. The shows were circulated online, and they also convened networks of artists who found each other online, and all of this was translated into these physical spaces. there were lots of different ways of theorizing this but this network of alternative venues is really what made post-internet a movement
AFK Sculpture Park, 2011 http://archive.rhizome.org/artbase/55583/www.vvork.com/index.html@page_id=17100 “ Bleary-eyed and disoriented, seven brave net-artists escape from the hypnotizing glow of their computer monitors, venturing forth boldly into the Material Realm. For this exhibition, curators Daniel Keller and Nik Kosmas (Aids-3D), have decided to open the gardens of Atelierhof Kreuzberg to these cyber-refugees, so that they may fill them with their sculptural creations. To complete this odyssey across the mind/body divide, the sculpture park will be recorded in glorious ultra-accurate 3D point cloud data with state-of-the-art laser surveying equipment, so that the works remain eternally, online.”
Image Objects at Reference Gallery, 2011 https://anthology.rhizome.org/image-objects
Generation Works, a gallery that no one could even visit in person, so it’s audience was only online: https://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/oct/02/generation-worked/
Read/Write at 319 Scholes: https://rhizome.org/editorial/2011/apr/01/readwrite-319-scholes/ Thousandsofcolors ( talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Code 357700 71.146.42.102 ( talk) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote re New Materialism from source titled 'Post-Internet Materialism' in the first response: "recent sculpture that can be described as neomaterialist or post-internet" and later: "even a few years ago there was no concept of post-internet, and the concept of new materialism was largely absent from the contemporary art-world". There is considerably more as the entire article is about the so-called New Materialism of Post-Internet art. My summary in the article could be improved, but it is factually an interchangeable concept.
Quote re New Aesthetic from source titled 'What Is Post-Internet Art? Understanding the Revolutionary New Art Movement': "The influential blog The New Aesthetic, run since May 2011 by writer and artist James Bridle, is a pioneering institution in the post-Internet movement." and: "Much of the energy around the New Aesthetic seems, now, to have filtered over into the "post-Internet" conversation." My take is basically Bidle tried to 'brand' an idea and it just came out over time being called Post-Internet by most of the practitioners. Thus: same idea with 2 names. That is very clear in this second one. Again, if you have a suggestion for rewording, please go ahead.
Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
lists grow, anyone can stick a name under "notable" artist, and do so without adhering to WP:NOTABILITY, having a Wikipedia article does not qualify someone as "notable."
see also Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
worth noting too, MOS rule for music genres equally applicable to art movements (genres), per lists, "Music genre articles should not contain lists of performers. A separate list page may be created." Acous mana 17:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
having a Wikipedia article does not qualify someone as "notable."except that's exactly what notability means on Wikipedia. Challenges to notability of subjects occur on their respective pages (and I see you've copy/pasted a delation rationale to prod several of the names on this list -- fair enough). For the sake of including on a list like this, what we need is for them to be notable, yes, but also sourcing to make sure they are indeed an example of this, and it looks like this list has that sourcing. If you want to challenge specific names, you're welcome to, but it's not the right way to dispute their notability. Perhaps some of the regulars at artist-related deletion discussions ( Possibly and Theredproject come to mind) can take a look at the prods. I do see that some were created by SPAs, and that some are overly detailed, but from a glance at them earlier today it seems like at least a couple are likely notable. I'll refrain from getting involved there, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
User:ILIL What I'm seeing here is borderline edit warring over the last few days about the inclusion of Parker Ito. Claims to Soapboxing don't make sense to me other than what appears to be ironically your soapboxing, i.e. advocating against a particular artist. Your removal of a cited reference and, in my opinion pretty decent image which demonstrates what the article is about (essential on any art page), image of Ito's work was bold, but the back and forth is unneeded. I've contributed a bit to this article, to improve it to encyclopedic standards, but I don't know everything. If you have a strong case why Ito is not a post-internet artist please elaborate below. The citation mentioned is not a mere 'blog' in my opinion but the website for a curator and arts writer. It's her opinion, it's primary source, but I see little difference in any other academic or 'trade' writing. A lot of this page, and similar art pages, relies on these types of specialist opinion. Additionally, Ito has been featured in explicitly Post-Internet shows. Again, in regards to WP:SOAP, I have no dog in this fight, I'm interested in making this a better article and it's not clear how your edits are doing that. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 02:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
References
One of the big dynamics within post-internet art was that artists could create “offline” exhibitions and share them online. So small art galleries in Richmond VA, Berlin or Mexico City were suddenly addressing a global audience. The most important audience for a sculpture would be the online audience for it, so the artist would consider it in relation to how it would be documented. The blogs VVORK and Contemporary Art Daily were a big part of this, and later the rise of Insta. The shows were circulated online, and they also convened networks of artists who found each other online, and all of this was translated into these physical spaces. there were lots of different ways of theorizing this but this network of alternative venues is really what made post-internet a movement
AFK Sculpture Park, 2011 http://archive.rhizome.org/artbase/55583/www.vvork.com/index.html@page_id=17100 “ Bleary-eyed and disoriented, seven brave net-artists escape from the hypnotizing glow of their computer monitors, venturing forth boldly into the Material Realm. For this exhibition, curators Daniel Keller and Nik Kosmas (Aids-3D), have decided to open the gardens of Atelierhof Kreuzberg to these cyber-refugees, so that they may fill them with their sculptural creations. To complete this odyssey across the mind/body divide, the sculpture park will be recorded in glorious ultra-accurate 3D point cloud data with state-of-the-art laser surveying equipment, so that the works remain eternally, online.”
Image Objects at Reference Gallery, 2011 https://anthology.rhizome.org/image-objects
Generation Works, a gallery that no one could even visit in person, so it’s audience was only online: https://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/oct/02/generation-worked/
Read/Write at 319 Scholes: https://rhizome.org/editorial/2011/apr/01/readwrite-319-scholes/ Thousandsofcolors ( talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Code 357700 71.146.42.102 ( talk) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)