—– Original Message —–
From: "Christina McPhee" <christina112@earthlink.net>
To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends
&family


> Eduardo,
> Curious…i wonder do you mean institutionalization in the academy, in
> museums? Re net art I assume…sorry it may seem like a dumb question but
am
> intrigued.
>
> christina

What I mean by "institutionalization" is, yes, in the academy. If we look
back in art history during the first half of the 20th Century we will notice
that Art making, as we know it today, was not part of a University
curriculum; it became an actual area of study in the latter half of the
Century. However, art had been part of the cultural institution for a much
longer amount of time – centuries for that matter. From the moment a
discourse develops international historians, I think it may be safe to say
that the field is fully institutionalized.

Net Art already has a few important theoreticians and historians; this
happened in less than ten years. This may be due to net art's dependency on
computer technology; and as it is no secret, computers are bound to the
academy for research interests. So while net art may not be fully
marketable for full-fledged profit, it certainly has a direct role in
research – especially in humanitarian fields. And this only happens within
academic institutions.

It is important to note that net art is esentially information, and selling
the work to collectors does not seem to be an effective way of making net
art any more legitimate. Because of its informational infrastructure, I see
it hard selling net art as the usual art commodity, but it does sell, of
course. Artists often do get commisions, but not usually from collectors,
but rather from major institutions. It is an institutionally based medium,
and the fact the same institutions who support it often misunderstand it is
very interesting to me.