<======>
Last night at The Kitchen, n+1 hosted a discussion about the internet. While Net Aesthetics 2.0 focused on the possibilities of art-making on the web, "The Internet: We All Live There Now" panel ranted about the impossibility of fiction and the delicate operation of shame on the internet. This literary standpoint seemed both relevant and pretentious. Here are some questions that were raised:
:// How is "clicking" analogous to physical touch?
:// Is the "window" really the correct term for what appears?
:// Where are you when you're "on" the internet?
:// If everything is searchable and can be found, is there anything new to say?
:// Does the internet make everything commercial?
:// Is there any pleasure to garnered from reading a blog that is similar to the joy of reading a book? Is there any satisfaction at the end of reading a post?
:// How does tone, grammar, and word choice change when writing a blog entry v. a comment?
:// Is there a humiliation in oversharing information on the web?
:// Do people born after 1980 feel shame anymore? (this raised a lot of debate)
:// Is the Kindle the new Segway? (both replace an easy, simple, often enjoyable task of turning pages or walking)
So, what did I gain from this literary discussion about the internet? Mostly that people will do anything to apply old ways of thinking to new technologies (what are the active discourses of the internet?). Especially when their life's work depends on retaining a relevancy. I see this in art history and now I've gotten a glimpse of it in literary scholarship. The focus on shame was a bit overwhelming and not something discussed as much in internet art. Internet art seems more about putting your work out there, getting recognized, and creating a buzz. I would appreciate any answers to the questions above.
