I thought this reading was interesting because I had never heard the term "net.art" before. Spending lots of time on the internet, that surprised me. Beginning in the 90s when the internet was still pretty new to people, it makes sense that a lot of established and significant figures in the art world were not yet posting themselves on the internet. I thought the piece about the phone booths disrupting daily life at King's Cross station was interesting. I was a bit confused about what was being explained in the CNN.com section, but I really liked the faux title mentioned: "Art without social involvement is Impossible." I also found it interesting that creative domains allowed for the commercialized and public space that we see today. I liked that the internet allowed a platform for feminist issues to make a public appearance, even though it did not take the spotlight for many people. A problem with the easy accessibility of chat rooms and connections was that anyone could easily make a fake account and enter chat rooms they normally wouldn't have been allowed to be in, like the man who masqueraded as a woman online to join their intimate chats. They called this "cyber-rape" which is another term that I have not heard before. The article mentions that net.art may have brought about some decline when it moved to be more institutional, but I disagree. I think the institutional aspect has brought about commercial art, which is different, but still similar enough, just with a capitalist influence.
Yorumlar