[This is a rewrite and loose translation of a text by the Dutch writer
Gerrit Komrij on 'How to read poetry'.]

No matter in which way we approach net.art, the world of the net.art
'watcher' or audience is full of traps. A few examples: Never ask a
net.artist what he means by a certain work. That is as stupid as
wondering when seeing a painting 'what it is supposed to represent'. If
the net.artwork would mean something else then what it shows, it would
be another net.artwork. In addition to this a net.artwork can have
different meanings and connotations to various viewers. Also a
net.artwork can mean -this- now, but it can mean -that- after five
years. One can never definetely 'grasp' a net.artwork. A net.artwork has
a dynamic content.

Never admire a net.artwork because the net seems so well played. Or the
visuals are so good. Keep remarks like these for a violin or a
landscape. Also never say a net.artwork moves you aesthetically. That
kind of language you should save for a visit to the hairdresser or
manicure. Never try to draw wise lessons from a net.artwork.
Schoolmasters do not agree with net.art, even though some schoolmasters
have been net.artists by mistake. Net.artists often do not understand
the world at all. They can be as stupid as their audience. Net.artworks
understand everything.

Never think that a net.artwork, like a net.artist, lies shamelessly.
There are no lies in cyberspace. The world can be square in a
net.artwork, mediatheory can be an orange and grass can be blue.

Never be fooled when you read the words 'me' or 'I' in a net.artwork.
The maker of a good net.artwork always means someone else by them, even
when talking about him or herself.

Never pressume a net.artwork is clear and understandable. It would be
better to have another look at it in that case. When a net.artwork seems
perfectly simple and cristal clear, even then it remains
incomprehensible how the net.artist got it this simple and cristalclear.
That is: if it is a good net.artwork.

Never assume a net.artwork is dark and incomprehensible. Even when you
do not understand a byte from it, even if it is as obscure as the night
in terms of its segments, there is always a level at which you
understand it. That you understand it is a net.artwork for instance.
That is: if it is a good net.artwork.

Do not wonder if a decentralised net.artwork uses its network well, as
you should never ask yourself of a non decentralised net.artwork why it
is not networked. That is totally futile matter. Every net.artwork is
full of the network. Associations, alliances, codes, thefts, breaks,
even the stand alones, it is all networking in disguise. Think with all
figure of code, every note and technical trick: it is not just the
scenery of the net.artwork, it is the net.artwork.

Start seriously doubting your right to live if you never spontaneously
burst out crying after witnessing a net.artwork. But let it be
existential crying, straight from the midrif.

Do not think you have seen enough net.artworks. At any given time or at
any given moment a net.artwork can pop up that unsettles everything you
have witnessed before.

So far for some hints to have a better daily association with net.art.
By sniffing and jumping at net.art from all sides in not limit yourself
in your taste or preferences - the house of net.art has many chambers -
you in the end get used to the idea you will never entirely get used to
net.art. Net.art is not your friend, net.art is the mean watchdog in the
garden.

There is something in net.art, like in music and poetry, that can not be
put into words, and as net.art is something made out of data this seems
very alienating at first, which seems like we do not want to accept it.
Like it is not giving us something it 'could' give to us. Until we
discover that its secret reserves are its power.

In the previous I have solely spoken about net.art in flat words. I have
departed from what I see as the ideal approach: taking an actual
net.artwork as an example or rather as a point of departure. Only
through a net.artwork one can say something about a net.artwork, and
then even only about -that particular- net.artwork. One makes a serious
mistake by attacking a net.artwork with conclusions drawn from another
net.artwork. Generalizations are the mortal enemy of net.art. Only by
putting as many net.artworks together or viewing them next to eachother
something clear might come out eventually about net.art. I realise it is
cold comfort.