Talk:Post-Internet

New Materialism & New Aesthetic
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)
 * "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." OK, I get that, but i see this as WP:SYN when neither source states the conclusion explicitly. I'm being difficult about the sourcing on this article because it currently relies heavily on web-based content, much of which is not really WP:RS. There are published academic writings that would function as more authoritative sources. Worth noting also that 'post-internet' is an expansion of internet art, it didn't just appear out of the blue as a "new movement," it was "new" to individuals with no knowledge of the history of new media/internet art, but the notion that is was a "new aesthetic" is not without problems. None of this is touched on in the article. And a photo of Grimes? Why are we giving prominence to something so peripheral? Acousmana (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand your concerns. I do think the quotes I left above do connect the topics, and I do think it is with significance. So, I feel that a rewording will solve the problem.
 * I'm looking through books and academic stuff atm, so hope to improve the article that way.
 * Yes, that's a good point about net-art. Needs to be included. 'New Aesthetic' is problematic, but it was a brand for an academic...
 * Why Grimes? It's to correspond to the style section, her music or fame aside, she represents very well the Post-Internet influence on culture, aesthetic, fashion in that year.
 * Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * i would contend that Grimes is peripheral with respect to the history of internet art/post-internet, one could pick any number of musicians influenced by the aesthetics of that period, it's also a WP:BALASP issue, are we presenting an article on an art-movement or a fashion trend? currently half of the content relates to "style." Acousmana (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, well that section was pre-existing, but perhaps yes the image draws too much attention to Style which isn't that important to the art movement. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Poster for Grimes at the Arches (cropped).jpg

"Notable" artists
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 Notability_(people)

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." Acousmana 17:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the article is improved by deleting the example list of artists working in the genre. If potential future listcreep is a problem (which it doesn't really seem to be), we can put a warning at the top and make sure to remove artists which lack linked articles. If you don't like the word "notable" in an article heading, feel free to change it. If some of the linked artists fail WP:ARTIST, flag them for deletion. And I don't know the rationale behind the music genres MOS, but it doesn't necessarily map to a niche art genre. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:53, 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 ( and 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. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * sourcing standards on a lot of contemporary "artists" is poor, very poor, blogs, webzines, gallery PR, group show catalogs, vanity press etc. etc. but assessing actual notability, per WP:ARTIST is easy once all the fluff is stripped away. I get it, the art world is a competitive place, artists are trying to get their SEO in order, they need a Wikipedia entry for art-PR purposes, they think it demonstrates they are somebody - while actively editing entries about themselves (the wealthy ones pay a publicity agent). Ultimately it amounts to a form of intellectual dishonesty, it's an appearance of notability, nothing more - which ironically is very post-internet. Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems there are three issues here. First is the notability of the artists listed. as I noted on the AfDs you proposed, I strongly suggest you actually read WP:ARTIST. Also, XFD is the correct route, rather than PROD. "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion" These are not uncontroversial. Second is whether a list should be here at all: I don't personally have an opinion on that. Third is whether these are the most significant artists who work in this mode: I would say that most of them are. Theredproject (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * fourth issue is COI, it happens, a lot, hence WP:SOAP, there are a lot of soapy artist articles - some being nothing more than mash-ups of CV-like writing and PR, it's not encyclopedic, it's SEO, if AfD brings more attention, and folk with an interest can demonstrate notability, all good, don't see an issue with that. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 16:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ with all the points made by . This list should be removed, perhaps along with the image gallery, which I'm not sure is appropriate for Wikipedia. I also feel that the lead image should not be a cherrypicked gallery exhibition. ili (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Leave both. First off, as stated, if the artist has a page it means they've passed some concensus based scrutiny. It's not the job of the article to have verify every linked page. Second, the point of a list is to demonstrate further examples that may provide more detail and greater understanding of this art movement. Third, even more so for the gallery, I started it and added a number of my own images I took at a very good example of and overtly Post-Internet exhibition, The Berlin Biennale. My aim was to provide concrete examples of a range of artists and their practices that demonstrate visually what this, sometimes, nebulous movement is. A picture is worth a thousand words, right?. A small, diverse, picture gallery makes this a better article imo. I have no personal attachment to individual images, so if some represent it better than others, or others could be added, then by all means... Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * per Hesperian. So long as the list is restricted to notable artists, it's useful context for a reader trying to get a handle on the genre. Without it, they're left to click through the cited sources about post-Internet art exhibitions to learn who was actually exhibiting at them, getting a less useful and less hyperlinked version of the same information. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Parker Ito
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)
 * You forgot to mention for full disclosure that the "cited reference" you used to justify Parker Ito's presence at the top of the article is Parker Ito's website. It would be highly preferable to use images similar to those seen on Image macro. In fact, any of the images used on Internet meme should be considered valid examples of post-Internet art. I don't know why you seem to have tunnel vision for physical constructs displayed at an art gallery. Post-Internet comes in all forms of media. ili (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is currently written in terms of an art movement, so a photo of an artwork in a gallery is a more effective MOS:LEADIMAGE than an internet meme. A photo of actual artwork is also more useful than an ersatz Wikipedia-logo parody of what an internet meme would look like if the article were able to include one. Since the article text doesn't currently explain how an online image macro would be an example of post-Internet art (and it is on the surface a surprising claim to make, that a cartoon on the internet is also "post-internet"), I have removed the lead image of the Wikipedia-logo macro. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, however, I still believe that it's preferable to use a free generic image for such a niche and vaguely-defined movement. ili (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No offense, but based on your comments above User:ILIL and your repeated, incorrect, placement of a Vapour Wave image (something that is only tangentially related to the article and a topic of high interest to you) I'm starting to think you don't have a really good handle on what Post Internet art is. It is not Net Art, but art created because of the internet, sometimes reifying things directly from the internet. Like all art, it definitely is most often seen in galleries and exhibitions. It is important not to add your own original research by redefining the topic of this page by removing what you don't approve of or understand. In regards to including Parker Ito's website, I'm sure I don't understand what you mean. I just Googled it and his site is: https://parker.sex/. I see no reference to this. If we can stick to the facts here, it would be very useful for improving this page. Right now it looks like you have a bone to pick with certain artists and are perhaps overstepping your knowledge base. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this rev which included a link to "parkerito.com". One of the sources describe post-Internet examples as ranging from "Second Life portraits to digital paintings on silk to 3-D-printed sculpture". I'm not sure what a "Second Life portrait" is supposed to be – a portrait based on an online game? In other words, mere video game fanart. That doesn't quite fit in with your characterization. ili (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I realize now that it was Lord Belbury who added the link to parkerito.com – sorry for the mix-up. ili (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just seeing the last edit by User:ILIL. Please refrain from further edits until this is resolved. That image has literally nothing to do with Post Internet art. Seriously, this is very un useful editing. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this article? If you read it completely they note that the artist Bunny Rogers has put her modified Second Life portraits "onto gallery walls". Very much in keeping with the definition of Post Internet art. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look at the Parker Ito website reference. It appears Parker posted an article written about him by Toke Lykkeberg. It is also available here on Academia.edu. Lykkeberg "is a curator, critic, and art consultant. Since becoming director of Tranen (contemporary art centre in Denmark) in 2017..." Outside of the url, this is a legitimate text to cite. . I think we can safely say Ito is a Post Internet artist. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Post-Internet and online circulation of images
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)

Blooket
Code 357700 71.146.42.102 (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)