A Brief Introduction to Internet Art
The Role of the Museum
Physical Exhibitions
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
The Whitney Museum of American Art
Mark Napier
Feed    
The Waiting Room
Point-to-Point  
Conclusions
Further Reading
Works Cited

A Brief Introduction to Internet Art

This thesis will analyze two exhibitions that occurred in 2001, 010101 Art in Technological Times at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and BitStreams and Data Dynamics at the Whitney Museum of American Art, and focus on a specific work featured in each show created by the internet artist Mark Napier. These two works, Feed and Point-to-Point , highlight the different circumstances surrounding new media exhibitions and the curatorial practices implemented by each museum.   Some critics and internet artists believe that the form is best viewed at the personal computer of each viewer.   Although museums have the opportunity to provide an important function as purveyor of information for the developing field, curatorial conventions run the risk of pushing net art in a direction that best suits the needs of the museum rather than artists.   Because the creators of internet art rely heavily on commissions from museums for monetary support and exposure to a larger audience, the question is not whether or not museums should exhibit internet art, but how the commissioning process directly affects the development of the field and how the form should be displayed.

In Media Art Net, Rudolf Frieling and Dieter Daniels stated: "Although the mainstream of a still print-based art history and cultural transmission cannot adequately represent the specific character of multimedia art, a platform with a widespread resonance has not yet been established on the net."(1)   Because of this, in conjunction with this paper I have created an online version of the thesis that allows for a more direct connection with the material through hypertext.   Inherently dependent on the viewer, interactive internet art is notoriously difficult to depict in print form, and my hope is to provide satisfactory descriptions of the works and process alike, motivating the reader to further investigate each work online for his or her own self.

Because works of internet art can be accessed by anyone with an internet connection and infinitely copied, they do not possess the monetary value that is associated with works of traditional art.(2)   Issues of authenticity, condition, provenance, and rarity create a difficult market for internet art and many museums have been forced to commission works with the help of sponsors like Intel and MCI. The collection of internet art presents a problem for permanent collections since the value of art is often directly linked to the work's market value. According to Jeremy Strick, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles:

"[New Media Art] questions everything, the most fundamental assumptions: What is a work? How do you collect?   What is preservation?   What is ownership?   All of those things that museums are based upon are structured upon are pretty much thrown open to question."(3)

Many museums have created new departments and have hired new employees to implement changes that help ease the transition to exhibiting new media work.   With dramatic changes in technology, older works of internet art often require reprogramming to be able to function on more advanced computers, and many museums lack the money or desire for such upkeep.

The creation of photography, and its ability to document and perfectly copy works, produced many concerns about the originality of a work of art.   Authenticity suggests that an image is unique and that there is a fundamental difference between the original image and its reproduction, and therefore where it is possible to distinguish between an original and a copy, originals are more highly valued.(4) According to Walter Benjamin, because reproductions simulate original time and space and "have not suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in ownership," copies lack aura and are of less importance than originals. (5) While storage devises, such as hard drives and cd-roms can be damaged and technology can render a program inoperable, because works of internet art exist solely in code, manifested through graphics, physical damage is impossible.   "Like it or not," ZKM curator Timothy Druckery says, "Benjamin's 'one way street' has been superseded by the 'superhighway.'" (6) In many cases, the traditional reproduction Benjamin warned against has been supplanted by digital duplication. Digially reproduced images are especially problematic because they can be infinitely copied without degradation in quality and it is only possible to differentiate the copy from the original by the date in which it was created. (7) Unlike traditional modes of reproduction like photography, with digital duplication there is no negative to burn or mold to break, so each duplicate is exactly the same.   This allows a limitless number of copies to be made, even when the original has been destroyed. (8) Rather than multiple reproductions of internet art "substitut[ing] a plurality of copies for a unique existence," (9) as Benjamin claims, it could be argued that each work of internet art, regardless of how many copies exist, should be viewed as one work.   While the reproduction of traditional art "withers in the age of mechanical production" and suffers a loss of the work's aura, because each copy of a digital file is identical, the work is never subjected to such depreciation. (10)

While literature, music, and film are industrially produced and are able to maintain their artistic importance, fine art has "condemned itself to marginality by refusing fully to embrace reproducibility."(11)  Internet art, however, has the ability to change this archaic system of patronage through its ability to infinitely replicate itself. (12)   According to Benjamin:

"The desire of contemporary masses to bring things 'closer' spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction.   Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at a very close range by way of its likeness, its reproduction." (13)

Unlike reproductions of traditional art that result in lesser forms of their original, however, the reproducibility of digital art effectively allows the viewer, regardless of geographic proximity or temporal distance, to view the truest form of the work.   While no internet artist wants someone to reproduce or use his work without permission, internet art has always embraced the unavoidable concept of reproducibility and this idea is inherent in each work.   Many artists, including Mark Napier, whose work will be subsequently discussed, prefer an open source system and publicize some of their own code, pleased to share it with other artists. (14)   Because the expenditure involved in creating open source software is time and not money, it is possible for millions of users to have a copy of the code without negatively affecting the inventor. (15)   In addition, those who use the code created by others but do not contribute to the code's evolution can be easily ignored, since they do not monetarily affect the community. (16)   Therefore, the ownership of information is worth very little, opening up the possibility of a highly participatory culture capable of significant economic change. (17)

It is a widely held belief that internet art will never gain the recognition of traditional mediums since it is impossible to sell a website, but inherent in the tradition of the form is a democratization of art. (18) Because internet art can be seen by anyone with access to a browser, with no additional equipment necessary, the form itself creates not only a broader means for the distribution of the work, but for dissemination of the conversation about art. (19)  The non-hierarchical structure of the internet itself has created the feeling of a level playing field. (20) In fact, many internet artists feel that the number of people viewing their art is more important than profit, and prefer to keep their work out of museums and galleries in an attempt to distance themselves from commercial areas. (21) True to the tradition of internet art, online artists often post their work without the expectation of monetary compensation but it is yet to be seen whether internet artists can continue to survive in our profit driven economy. (22) It is therefore important that contemporary museums, keenly aware of the struggle of artists to survive while creating non-traditional works, have started commissioning pieces.

While it is impossible to remove the issues of accessibility, reproducibility, and authenticity from internet art, museums play a crucial role in preserving the work, creating a dialog surrounding new media practices, and creating a viable market for future works. (23) Since internet art does not require a museum to present works to the public and can been seen by anyone with access to the web in any place at any time, many galleries were previously not eager to display internet art, which led many artists and other internet enthusiasts to assume the role of curator by building and hosting online galleries. (24) These galleries made it possible for curators and consumers alike to view artwork at their own leisure and without the restrictions of geography and gallery hours. (25) While the impact of online galleries remains limited compared to a traditional museum setting, they have significantly influenced other internet artists and many people continue to participate in them. (26) About 2,000 people each day visit Mark Napier's website which archives his work, including many of those that have been commissioned by physical museums. (27) Although Napier has received various commissions in addition to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney Museum of American Art, he remains suspicious of placing his work within a museum setting.   Napier has said, "What concerns me are the curators and critics that are ignorant of technology, and make decisions about net art without understanding how the artwork fits into a bigger picture of the technology environment." (28)

The Role of the Museum

Traditionally, the role of the museum has been to collect, preserve and interpret works of art, but beginning in the twentieth century, museums engaged with contemporary art frequently began to commission works. (29)   Having missed out on many important works of art by not quickly acquiring them, the desire of some museums to be at the forefront of art movements helped lead to the process of commissioning pieces. (30) This allowed artists who created works that might not necessarily emerge otherwise, such as site specific, installation, and some conceptual works, to be monetarily supported by a museum, gain visibility, and promote their art.   In addition to supporting a burgeoning field, commissioning works can be beneficial to museums because it allows them to acquire important works close to the time they were created (31) and claim that they are reaching an audience outside of their usual sphere of influence. (32)   By being at the forefront of contemporary art movements and commissioning pieces, the museum avoids running the risk of missing out on the collection of important works. (33)   By commissioning pieces, the museum is able to build on its traditional roles of collecting, preserving, researching, and displaying new media art to educate and promote the developing form. (34)   The museum as a capitalist art institution is able to legitimize itself by exhibiting works of art that appear to critique the system. (35)   Little truly radical work, however, has been allowed to enter museum walls as museums become more reliant on corporate money and sponsorship. (36)

Because the commissioning of internet art blurs many conventional boundaries, there are multiple ways in which museums can view their acquisition.   If the museum views a work of internet art as an original piece, it is approached as a traditional work that is finite and should not be replicated.   The museum is seen as the sole owner and the only venue in which the piece is displayed. (37)   A piece of new media art can also be seen as an edition - similar to photography, prints, film, or video - and a limited number of identical copies will be made by the artist. (38)   Finally, a work of new media art can be seen as a live performance, ephemeral and existing as an experience in time that, unless recorded, will vanish after its completion. (39)   Many, including Whitney curator Christiane Paul, feel that the most productive way to think of new media art is to link it with performance because "the artwork has been transformed into a structure that relies on a constant flux of information and engages the viewer/ collaborator the way a performance might." (40)   According to artist Mark Napier, internet art is unquestionably a performance because software is something you "basically perform on a machine." (41)  

In addition to the possessing the ability to persuade museums as to which artists should receive commissions, curators have a dramatic influence on the prevalence and direction of their respective new media programs.   David Ross, for instance, who recently left his title at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, had a long personal commitment to new media and helped to shape the museum's program. (48)   By acknowledging that new media artists "resist being characterized and boxed," Ross attempted to emulate their rebellion of traditional forms of representation in his curatorial practice by acquiring artists from a variety of departments. (49)   The collection of websites as design in cd-rom format was started by Aaron Betsky, who until recently was the curator of Architecture and Design.   By treating each design as a unique and fixed object, Betsky succeeded in documenting a variety of sites and legitimizing their artistic value. (50)   The curator of New Media, Benjamin Weil also has a long-standing commitment with internet art, and as an early member of ada'web helped with the San Francisco MOMA's acquisition of the site. (51)    Previously under the assumption that internet based works should be viewed on a personal computer, Weil is optimistic about the role of the museum in bringing internet art to a larger public. (52) By its nature, new media art's defiance of classification often leads to the necessity of a variety of curators, which creates the potential for conflicts.   While both Benjamin Weil and Aaron Betsky worked together for a period at the San Francisco MOMA to promote new media art, they had very different ideas about the role of the museum in the commissioning process. (53)   Betsky believes that due to the conservative character of the museum, experimentation should not happen within the museum walls, stating, "Art museums are, by their nature, half a step behind.   And that's absolutely fine." (54)   Weil acknowledges that not everyone in the art world agrees that commissioning work is beneficial, but agrees that the mission of the specific museum should ultimately determine the commissioning process, (55) stating:

"So for me what is really important is to think about how to support that kind of research, and commissions as being the only solution that we have at this point.   In other words, providing the infrastructure; giving money to artists to produce their work and possibly extending this to being able to put them in touch with people who can help them with technical problems that they can't necessarily solve on their own." (56)

Physical Exhibitions

Although online galleries such as Rhizome and The Thing have been displaying internet art for more than a decade, physical museums have been slow to incorporate internet art into their exhibition cycles.   The Whitney Biennial in 2000, which hosted ten works of internet art, proved to be a watershed moment for the developing field, and in the following year, two reputable museums - one on each coast of the United States - arranged separate shows dedicated to the influence of technology on artistic practice.   Both the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art's 010101: Art in Technological Times and the Whitney's BitStreams and Data Dynamics were comprised of commissioned internet art pieces and commissioned and non-commissioned works of traditional art that made use of contemporary technological practice.  

Although both museums are dedicated to supporting the field of internet art and created specific exhibition websites in conjunction with their sites dedicated to other internet based works, the museums chose to handle the commissioning of internet art works in very different manners.   The San Francisco MOMA created an extensive exhibition website for the internet pieces of 010101 and, while the exhibition included a variety of more traditional works within the museum walls, chose not to display the internet works within the physical museum.    In contrast, the Whitney specifically commissioned internet-based installations with the intention of mounting the work within the museum, placing the pieces online within a simple site for reference.   The choices made by the museums in regards to their intentions for each show dramatically affected what types of pieces were included in the show and, because the internet art pieces were commissioned, had a direct effect on the types of internet art that was created.  

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art's exhibition 010101: Art in Technological Times , which was comprised of works within the museum walls and online, commissioned both new media and non-new media artists, although the majority of web-only pieces were created by new media artists. (57) "Consciously affected by the cultural and economic context of the Bay Area - that of Silicon Valley, dot coms, and new technology in general... the region also has an artistic identity of new-technology related work," providing a framework that allowed for the exhibition to be well attended and received. (58)   As the first exhibition in the museum's history to combine commissioned work available only online with other pieces only accessible in the physical presence of the museum, the San Francisco MOMA acknowledged the multiple venues currently available to artists. (59)   The online component of the exhibition, which is still available today, became accessible to the public during the first minute of January 1, 2001, giving the exhibition its numerical name, (60) while the museum exhibition was on view from March 3 to July 8 of 2001.

According to the exhibition catalog: "The show is more than an art exhibition, however; it is also a look at how technology is bringing new ideas and working processes to the studio and stimulating new exhibition practices at museums." (61) Sponsored by Intel, the exhibition was comprised of an extensive online gallery for internet art, virtual reality installations, and video projections as well as the more traditional forms of photography, designed environments, installations, drawing, painting, and sculpture. (62) Speaking of the cross-disciplinary and conceptual approach of the exhibition, John Weber, Curator of Education and Public Programs said:

"[We] realized how much of this work is being driven by that conceptual motor, and a lot of what that motor has to do with how we use language to apprehend experience and that we filter things through concepts which are possessed very much verbally rather than...viscerally or though some motion of the hand and eye." (63)

Therefore, in addition to showcasing work that makes use of the most recent technologies, the curators were interested in recording the affects technology has had on aesthetic practices and social relationships. (64) 

Because 010101 confronted such a wide range of media, the curators, the museum's publishing and graphic design department, and the designers worked on the presentation for over two years and often struggled with maintaining an appropriate balance between the online and in-house exhibitions. (65)   The extensive website for 010101: Art in Technological Times was produced by the director of web content, Sherry Miller and the acting web manager, Julie Kim.   The firm Perimetre-Flux created the design for both the website and the exhibition galleries. (66)   Because the exhibition incorporated such a large variety of works that were technically advanced, atypical posts such as Information Systems and Services and Engineers had to be integrated into the system. (67) In addition to the infrequency of supplementary positions, it was also unusual for such a large group of curators (68) to work on a single exhibition. (69)  

Throughout the galleries, constantly changing "Think Texts," quotations from a variety of people including Theodor Adorno, Jean Baudelaire, and Guy Debord, were displayed on LCD screens. (70)   The themes of Identity, Sprawl, Detritus, Nomadism, Anonymity, Technology, and Reality were chosen as core concepts for both the online discussion sessions and the Think Texts in the gallery.   Words and ideas typed by online users in the discussion area of the website were also often displayed on the screens.   By making the museum and the website dependent on the same infrastructure, Perimetre-Flux intended to destroy the boundaries between online and offline experiences.   These "Think Texts" were also printed in the catalog and are prevalent on the website, creating a sense of unity throughout all aspects of the exhibition.

Unlike previous exhibitions that often had publicity and archive material on the general site, the additional 010101 website offers not only the internet pieces, but also interpretative material and a discussion area. The web site features the work of five internationally recognized digital artists and designers, including Erik Adigard, Entropy8Zuper!, Mark Napier, Matthew Richie and Thomas & Craighead (WARNING: IN ORDER FOR THIS PROJECT TO FUNCTION, YOU MUST HAVE YOUR POP-UP BLOCKER DISABLED AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXIT YOUR BROWSER TO END THE PROJECT.) and, according to artist Mark Napier, curator Benjamin Weil was "very hands-off" during the process, allowing the artists to determine the outcome of the project. (71)   The commissions have been categorized into two separate digital fields: those that are "art informed by the computer's seductive ability for eye candy and games" and those that "engage with the practice of deconstructing web programming and behavioral conventions." (72)   While an innovative and groundbreaking exhibition, during the commissioning process the curators rejected a project they deemed too "anarchic." (73)   The project, described to be like the Sorcerer's Apprentice from the animated film Fantasia , would endlessly open new windows until the machine was rebooted, resulting in the loss of unsaved files, creating a liability the museum could not afford. (74)   Corporate sponsorship also had a direct influence on piece created by Thomson & Craighead, who were forced to create an easier method for exiting the piece and change the original title of their piece Do You Yahoo? to E-Poltergeist . (75)   For the five approved commissioned internet art pieces, the budgets ranged from $25,000 to $75,000 (76) per project, which was provided by a number of donors. (77) The museum had a one-year exclusive contract for the commissioned pieces and retains the right to display the work, but after the first year, the property rights return to the artist. (78)   For example, since more than a year has passed since his commission, Mark Napier's piece Feed can now be viewed on both his personal web site and the website for 010101 .  

Including traditional information about the artists and their works, the website exhibition also includes introductory texts and listings of related museum activities, also incorporating more technologically savvy areas such as the site streaming of artists discussing their work.   The complexity of the site necessitated the use of several servers to host the project.   The artworks were placed on an offsite Linux server while the interpretation section of the web site, including the site streaming and database driven pages, was maintained within the museum.   The gallery Think Texts were supported by yet another wireless network within the museum. (79)   After being encouraged by the museum to create a website for 010101 that was noticeably different and more experimental than the institution's site for internet art, e.space, the design produced controversy for its unusual navigation. (80)  The branching interface of the site's navigation caused concern among the museum staff, who were worried that while the audience was familiar with traveling through the museum, those viewing the online art may have difficulties navigating their way through the cyberspace exhibition.(81)   The public had a similar response, with Julio Ojeda-Zapata, a journalist from I.D. (International Design) Magazine writing, "The online exhibit's Flash-based multimedia features require a reasonably capable computer and a bit of your patience: Figuring out how this site works definitely takes more than a few seconds of concentration."(82) 

Despite the eventual decision to make the 010101: Art in Technological Times website not available within the museum, whether or not to publicly display the internet art works was a point of contention amongst the curators.   According to Matthew Mirapaul of The New York Times, director David Ross was concerned about exhibiting work that was created specifically to deliver a one on one experience. (83)   While recognizing the museum's ability to inform the public, Ross explained that the real issue surrounding the exhibition of internet art in a museum setting is unjustly "rewriting the artist's intention to deal with the institutions obligation as an educational form." (84)   John Weber, curator of Education and Public Programs, agreed with Ross, arguing that the commissioned internet art pieces were not meant to be shown in public:

"The intention is that they be in a private space, and a number of them, in fact, are playing with your machine in such a way that it's meaningless to put them into a public space where it's not your computer and it starts doing weird things and you don't care, you just walk away, whereas if its your computer, you care." (85)

However, several of the curators reached the conclusion that without the internal museum support, many visitors may never see the works of internet art.   According to Benjamin Weil, curator of Media Arts, "We have to have [internet art] in the gallery, because that's how people are going to find out that it's there on the web" and while the internet art pieces were not shown in the gallery, their presence was made known through literature in the physical exhibition. (86)  

While there had been discussion for years surrounding whether or not the museum should take an active role in presenting new media work, because there were few organizational precedents or models to follow, the 010101 exhibition was experimental by nature. (87)   Due to the unfamiliar content of the exhibition, difficulties also continued to arise within the museums walls. During the construction of the exhibition, there were a variety of difficulties attempting to clear equipment as "art" rather than "merchandise" and it was often difficult to keep track of which objects, including software, were actually works of art. (88) When the museum was opened to the public, even though visible wall plaques describing each piece were hung, security officers reported an increase of having to intervene with the visitors, informing them of what they could and could not touch. (89)   Concerned that visitors would be overwhelmed with technology, the decision to not provide handheld guides forced visitors to focus on the equipment around them and may have inadvertently contributed to their confusion. (90)   Despite the confusion and perhaps because of the individual and intimate nature of the experience, there was an unusual desire to leave feedback in the gallery after viewing 010101. (91)

By tracking the internet protocol address of web users, the museum was able to calculate that the 010101 website received an average of 1,097 visitors per day over a twelve month period beginning in January of 2001 with an increase to an average of 11,000 visitors per week during the exhibition period. (92)   The San Francisco MOMA reported an average of 10,833 visitors per week to the physical exhibition, suggesting that the amount of people viewing the internet art site is at least as numerable as its corporal counterpart and perhaps a separate, independent audience. (93)   Only fifty-two percent of those who attended the physical exhibit were aware of 010101 before their visit while it can be inferred that nearly all of those who went to the web site were aware of its existence. (94)  Generally, new media art is believed to attract a younger audience, but in the case of 010101 , a greater number of museum visitors fell into the 30-44 year old range than the 18-29 year old range. (95)   The gender of visitors was split equally and, according to exit surveys, those with the least amount of formal education, lowest income range, and most knowledge of modern art rated the show the highest. (96)

In addition to the unusually large amount of feedback received in the gallery, 300 articles about the show appeared in various newspapers and journals through July of 2001. (97)   The Marketing and Communications department at the museum condensed the list to 100 by eliminating the articles that were short listings or brief mentions. (98)   Out of all the participating artists, the internet artist Mark Napier received the most mentions in the clippings list, with one positive, twenty-eight neutral, and three negative references. Roxy Paine, who " rigged his laptop computer to drive a custom-built sculpture-making machine, which drip[ped] molten plastic onto a conveyor belt to create an unlimited number of unique abstract, colorful blob sculptures," (99) received the second highest number of mentions with 21. (100) Because Napier lives and works in New York City and also had a work commissioned in the same year for the Whitney's Data Dynamics exhibition, it is possible that the high number of references to his work are the result of a combination of interest in the commissioning of internet art and an issue of availability to the New York press. (101)   The internet art pieces did not suffer from a lack of physical presence, with an average of 18 mentions per artwork versus the 8 mentions for non-internet works, and may have benefited not only from the novelty of the bourgeoning field, but from two separate press releases - one for the web site and one for the physical exhibition. (102)

The Whitney's BitStreams and Data Dynamics exhibition may have had a positive impact on the amount of press the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art received due to the close proximity of the shows.   In twenty-five of the 100 researched newspaper and journal clippings discussing 010101 the Whitney show was also mentioned. (103)   According to Beryl Graham, author of the Arts and Humanities Research Board's Curating New Media: SFMoMA and 010101, there was also "the delicious gossip potential of David Ross as a controversial figure leaving the Whitney, and Larry Rider moving from the Bay Area to the Whitney, with the exciting sports metaphor of a 'race' between the institutions to stage the 'first' new media show." (104)

The Whitney Museum of American Art

From March 22, 2001 to June 10, 2001, the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York held two concurrent and symbiotic exhibitions, BitStreams and Data Dynamics .   Opening just weeks after 010101: Art in Technological Times at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the decision of two respectable modern art museums solidified the contemporary artistic community's dedication to supporting the developing field of internet art.   Both BitStreams and Data Dynamics where held within the museum and possessed their own individual websites in addition to the Whitney's internet art portal, Artport.   Consistently treated like a single exhibition, only three curators produced BitStreams and Data Dynamics , but the small number of curatorial staff members did not prevent many of the problems the curators of 010101 experienced, as they were forced to make use of Instructional Technology and eventually hire outside technical support. (105)  

Curated by Lawrence Rinder and Debra Singer and sponsored by Phillip Morris Companies Inc., BitStreams was comprised of non-commissioned and commissioned pieces that focused on the "extraordinary range of artistic expression made possible through the capabilities afforded by digital technology." (106)   Using technology as a means for the expansion of creative possibilities for traditional subjects and forms, BitStreams included multimedia collage, photographic manipulation and twenty-five sound pieces. (107) According to Michael Kimmelman of the New York Times, the exhibition "did not have a single keyboard and (surprise) display[ed] what look like straightforward sculptures, paintings, photography, prints, and video.   The obvious point: Digital technology, infinitely mutable, can take traditional forms, too." (108)   The exhibition's online companion site, which is still available, was created by Nettmedia, an interactive developer in the entertainment industry, and features essays by the curating staff, basic information about artists, and lists of public programs supported by the Whitney.   Also included are links to artist's personal sites and other museum's sites, including the 010101 exhibition and the Walker Art Center's internet art site, Gallery 9. (109)

Although proving the museum's dedication to artistic developments by purchasing Douglas Davis' The World's First Collaborative Sentence in 1995 (110) and including ten pieces of internet art in the 2000 Biennial, Data Dynamics was the first exhibition at the Whitney to be dedicated to internet art. (111)   Although not initially conceived to coincide with BitStreams , a majority of visitors did not realize they were experiencing two separate exhibitions. (112)   Data Dynamics was curated by Christiane Paul and the exhibition was held in the Anne & Joel Ehrenkranz Gallery and the Robert J. Hurst Family Gallery. (113)   Recognizing the importance of displaying a field of art that is producing cutting edge work that explores the impact technology has on our culture, Christian Paul noted in the press release, "net artists are sill known primarily in the online art community and remain widely unrepresented in the museum system.   [The Data Dynamics ] projects represent a major contribution to the dissemination of new media art in this country." (114)   Paul encouraged the artists to think beyond the conventional scope of the computer's mouse, keyboard, and monitor. (115)   Sponsored by France Telecom North America and the Rockefeller Foundation, Data Dynamics commissioned five net art pieces from Marek Walczek, Mark Napier, Maciej Wisniewski, Beth Stryker & Sawad Brooks, and Adrianne Wortzel that were both establish as installations within the museum walls and shown online.   While traditional interactive computer installations allow the viewer and the image to be in the same space at the same time, the addition of the internet made it possible for the image and the viewer to occupy different spaces at different times. (116) 

According to Mark Napier, Christiane Paul had "more feedback [than SFMOMA curator Benjamin Weil] about the projects and chose Point-to-Point out of three ideas, but she was still very open about the nature of the project." (117)   Although it was Paul who had the responsibility of choosing which projects to commission, she claims that all of the pieces were displayed as installations because they made "sense in physical space." (118) The accompanying Data Dynamics website, created by Netomat, is still available.   Because the works were conceived as installations and relied upon the physical space of the museum, many of the pieces are now defunct.   Since video documentation of the works, recording the changes that took place as visitors interacted with each piece, do not exist, the performance aspect of the exhibition is now lost.   The website also lacks the discussion section and pertinent theoretical articles found on the 010101 site.  

Unlike the 010101 exhibition, because the pieces in Data Dynamics were commissioned with the intention of being installed within the museum, there was never a disagreement over whether or not the pieces should be placed in a gallery.   The "effortless" integration of video into the museum has proven that, even though video is an infinitely reproducible medium, it has not been prevented from acquiring an aura, as long as it can be exhibited as an installation as an individual work. (119)   During the exhibition, people were able to log into a dedicated computer terminal in the museum, participate in the large scale projection room by either actively engaging with the internet art piece or watching another visitor interact with the site, or log in through their personal computer. (120) These interactive experiences are unlike traditional static or temporal arts, and since they are regularly punctuated by the user's choice, are difficult for others to grasp. (121)  Instead, Data Dynamics focused on creating "visual models for representing a continuously changing flow of data" that "allows users to navigate visual and textual information and experience the flux of data" using the internet as a primary tool. (122)   While all of the projects concentrated on the idea of mapping data, each focused on a different dynamic, including mapping language, stories, memories or traffic in virtual or physical spaces. (123)   Like the 010101 exhibition, there were still complaints associated with the technically advanced installations.   Because viewer participation is necessary to make the pieces operate, long download times frustrated some viewers. (124)   As Michael Gibbs wrote in Art Monthly , "if you do manage to access the works than you're deluged with an excess of information, much of it contributed by other users who are as hapless as yourself." (125)   Realistic of the museum visitor's potential for confusion and aggravation when viewing novel and unfamiliar works of art, the curatorial staff of new media shows often expects such reactions, and are hopeful that as more new media art is displayed in museums, people will become more comfortable with the medium.  

After assuming his directorship in 1998, Max Anderson created curatorial positions with both media specific portfolios and chronological periods. (126)   Christiane Paul was selected as the adjunct curator of New Media and Larry Rinder, after leaving the California College of Arts Institute, researched and selected internet art for the 2000 biennial, considered a watershed moment for the field. (127) Whitney director Max Anderson was committed to "following the artists" and as curator of Contemporary Art, Larry Rinder has concentrated on a wide range of artists from a variety of fields. (128)   Through their leadership, the Whitney has commissioned a variety of new media projects and, according to Larry Rinder, who has commissioned two pieces for less than $30,000, the museums pays a fee that is negotiated with the artist and is comparable to commissions for other medias. (129)   The budget for Data Dynamics was $120,000 - with pieces ranging from $9,000 to 50,000 - and the Whitney will continue to commission four online pieces a year at a cost of $5,000 - $10,000 a piece. (130)   Similar to the philosophy at the San Francisco MOMA, Max Anderson believes that "software is intellectual property" and the museum has one year of exclusive rights followed by non-exclusive rights. (131)  

Mark Napier

Mark Napier stopped painting when he discovered the world wide web.   In 1993, the creation of the first web browser, Mosaic, provided the internet with a visual component, and two years later Mark Napier created his first website. (132) Napier, still painting at this time, was attempting to place some of his work online when he realized that once his pieces were digitized, their originality was lost and that the internet "has nothing to do with original objects." (133) A self-proclaimed creator of "net art," Napier produces work that is "about the internet and can not exist outside it." (134) By creating software that talks directly to the internet, appropriating text, images, and data, Napier's work deals with issues of ownership, authority and how technology and communication affect the virtual world. (135) Using this raw information, Napier uses programming languages to create aesthetic experiences, often allowing the coding process, with its unforeseen difficulties and unexpected results to affect his work. (136)  

While his projects usually begin with an idea about the internet or how the internet is used, Napier often allows these glitches in coding to add "another dimension" to his work. (137) Limited by amounts of memory and processing speeds, bugs and incompababilities in browsers, Napier admits that this "creative chaos" often lead to unanticipated, but wonderful results. (138) While the coding is an essential part of creating net art, to Napier it is more like a machine, designed to produce art rather than an art form itself. (139) Code, Napier says, is like paint and brushes: an integral part of the process, but simply a means of achieving the final product. (140) The code is dispensable, and focusing more on the output of the code than on the code itself will ultimately result in the survival of the emotional content of the work. (141) According to Napier, "the computer language, operating systems, and hardware form an infrastructure that supports the artwork, but they are not the artwork.   The artwork is an algorithm, a design, that is built on this infrastructure." (142)

Napier is still greatly influenced by painting, proposing that since paint is a physical medium controlled by hand, software code is similar because it is a language controlled through a computer interface. (143) While many of his internet pieces have hints of an abstract expression aesthetic, to Napier, the nature of the medium he is working with ultimately influences the ideas behind each work. (144) Indebted to conceptual art by a reliance on audience interaction and the transfer of information, internet art continues the practice of circumventing the status traditionally ascribed to art objects. (145) Especially in the early years of web art, which were limited to low resolution graphics, the form was often dominated by conceptual pieces, creating a general message that net art was meant to be "read" more than it was to be "seen." (146) Napier cites Jodi, a collaboration between European net artists Joan Heemskerk and Dirk Paesmans, as a major influence on his work. (147) By creating new aesthetic rules for net art, Jodi created work that was both conceptual and visual, proving that the internet browser was capable of sustaining pictorial arts. (148)

Ultimately, Napier saw more capacity for invention and creativity in the internet since, in net art the work can move, change, and evolve over time. (149)   Napier said, "I want a part of my artwork to be available to everybody.   When I got into internet art, I felt strongly that it was the next big movement in art - and in the world." (150)   The interactive qualities found in net art offered Napier a dimension that is impossible to address though traditional painting. (151) Viewers of traditional static art objects, such as painting or sculpture, are often allowed to gaze at and contemplate the work, but are unable to touch it. (152) With internet art, viewers become actively engaged in the creative process and are no longer simply bystanders, witnessing the final work. (153) By activating and becoming involved in the artwork, the viewer becomes a collaborator in the creative process of the artist and influences the piece by interacting with it. (154)   In addition to collaborating with Napier by participating in each piece, visitors to the site can make use of the "view source" feature (right click on a pc or crtl click on a mac to see the html of this page) included in browser structure and the code that drives each work.   By allowing visitors to participate in the artwork, each work inherently upsets the conventions of artistic ownership and authority. (155) Visitors shape the piece by the choices they make and cause the work to evolve and change in ways that are unpredictable to the artist. (156) Napier acknowledges that by creating these interfaces, in regards to color and composition, he produces certain potential relationships, but argues that it is truly the visitor who controls the final outcome of a piece. (157) The artwork is not an object, but rather a structure and interface through which visitors "participate in an aesthetic process" and without a contribution from the viewer, the pieces are lifeless and futile. (158) Interested in how people react to the further integration of technology into society, Napier often creates works that are concerned with distributed authorship and appropriation and exist in spaces created by the network, rather than the physical spaces we are accustomed to. (159)

In tackling issues of ownership and territory, Napier created The Shredder (1998) and Digital Landfill (1998) with are both seen as precursors to the more recent work, Feed. (160)   Using Perl scripts, (161) Napier retrieves the code of existing web pages and manipulates to create an appearance in his own format that is completely different than the original intended composition. (162) By using code to create his own software, Napier is able circumvent the artificial rules of boundary the browser imposes and investigate how individuals react to the web. (163) Speaking of his work, Napier said, "I want to satisfy a physical urge to get hold of this virtual 'stuff,' the material of the web, whatever it is, to act upon it, to alter it, even if it is the content of another web site that is supposed to be off limits to me." (164) By employing input from the user, Napier creates interactive experiences, where the viewer decides which sites to transform. Most website structure is based upon magazine, newspaper, book, or catalog design, which commonly results in web pages being treated as if they were physical pages. In The Shredder, the user is able to virtually "shred" a website, destroying these illusions of physicality. (165)   In Digital Landfill, the user fills in a form to contribute to an image, text, or website to the "trash," where it is archived and evolves, (166) creating a virtual archive of online material that can be excavated by the user to determine other user's interests or dislikes. (167)

Feed    

According to Napier, the anti-browser Feed, which was exhibited at the San Francisco Museums of Modern Art's 010101: Art in Technological Times , is a celebration of information overload rather than a protest against it. (168) The piece, which was planned for over a year before the exhibition, is unlike a data feed, which supplies information.   Instead, Napier's Feed consumes it, "reducing structure, meaning and content to a stream of text and pixels." (169) Rather than providing the viewer with useful statistics or relevant data, Feed acquires the data, code, graphics, and text of designated web sites, converting the "numeric data into graphics and graphic data into numbers." (170) Based on the principle of a web "spider," Feed searches the web, reading information on pages and following the links contained in those pages to continue its exploration. (171) Upon entering a URL or choosing one from Napier's predetermined list, Feed reads every byte of text and every image, translating the data into a visual demonstration of mathematics. (172) In addition to choosing what URL will be displayed, the user has the option of making certain aspects of the work visible or invisible and is able to adjust the size of each part. (173) Work like Feed , however, is often confusing to viewers, especially for those without a solid grounding in technology to whom even the most innovative programs seem "little more than high-end screensavers." (174)

Feed , along with The Shredder, Digital Landfill , and Riot , was created using JavaScript, Java, and DHTML and are viewed through an online browser, such as Internet Explorer or Netscape. (175) With Java's power, flexibility, and control, Napier is able to adjust very specific elements of his visual effects. (176) While Java is a difficult language and Napier admits that it is very complicated to create his desired effects, Java is more archival from an art-world perspective. (177) Because Java is a programming language, it is more likely than applications - like the popular Macromedia Flash - to be supported as technology progresses. (178) By making his work more sustainable, Napier creates work with the intention that as technology changes, his code can be rewritten using newer versions of Java. (179) Advances in technology often make older software and hardware obsolete, but by using more archival code, Napier presumes that there will never be a time when his work is no longer viewable. (180)

Because improvements in technology cause hardware and software to constantly evolve, the means of collecting works of internet art has drastically changed in the past few years. (181) Previously, CD-ROMs and DVDs were used to collect the necessary programs that made a piece function and legal rights to exhibit the work were acquired. (182) Along with other curators, Aaron Betsky, a former curator of Architecture, Design, and Digital Projects at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, realized that since these continually updated versions of hardware and software have different capabilities, museums had to decide which characteristics of the work were the most essential to the piece and the most crucial to preserve. (183) As a reaction to this obstacle, the Guggenheim, under the direction of John Ippolito, created the Variable Media initiative to help curators and artists proactively decide which aspects of a piece should be preserved. (184) According to Ippolito, there are four methods of preservation that artists must consider. (185) "Storage" is an ineffective method for internet art because of the constant need to upgrade machinery and "emulation" recreates the work on contemporary software while retaining the work's original appearance. (186) "Migration" necessitates the constant upgrading from one medium to another - similar to upgrading VHS tapes to the digital form of DVDs - but often results in the look of the piece changing.   The last option is "reinterpretation," which is comparable to the restaging of a performance piece. (187)

Unthreatened by the thought of someone recreating his work after his death, Napier concedes to the nature of his chosen form.   Because software is constantly being improved upon and changed, Napier never creates a "final" product. (188) Equating the situation of net art with music, Napier believes that, like a song that can be replayed and is not diminished by experimentation, net art should encourage the growth of works. (189) When Napier is no longer able to maintain his projects, he will give copies of the code to those who own the work, encouraging them to hire a programmer to update the piece for the technology of the time. (190) Mark Addison, an art history professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, purchased a share in Napier's The Waiting Room , and is unconcerned by the fact that the piece may become unviewable. Addison said, "A lot of art is ephemeral.   I'm willing to accept that it won't last forever.   If it does, and people are willing to rewrite the code, I'll go with that.   And if not, we enjoyed it while it was here." (191)

The Waiting Room

The Waiting Room (2002) is a piece that has the potential for 50 users to interact with each other through the internet to determine the appearance of this "interactive painting." (192) Purchased for $1,000 apiece, the shares allow users to view the site and while Napier created the software that drives the work, the online actions of the users generate the sights and sounds of the piece. (193) By making The Waiting Room limited to 50 shares, the limited edition piece functions more like a live performance than a static work. (194) When users click the screen, shapes appear and revolve against a black background and sound files are activated. (195) When multiple users view the piece online concurrently, they can produce shapes and sounds that either contribute to or eliminate the work of others. (196) When someone purchases a share of the piece, rather than owning a work of art, they are sharing in an online experience.   According to Napier, "the piece is meant to be seen not as 50 copies but as a single artwork that is literally a shared space online." (197)   Some visitors have difficulty grasping the concept of a continually evolving work, asking "Can I print this?" or "I love this composition.   I just want to stop it," and are disappointed to learn the artist's intent was to make such a request impossible.

"Clearly," Napier says, "I'm not in it for the money." (198) His motivation for offering signed copies of The Waiting Room is to establish a viable economic model that would help to sustain the work of internet artists. (199) Fearful that internet art will fade away if a support system is not in place, many artists have attempted to make their internet art economically fruitful.   By putting work on CD-ROMs and offering signed printouts of their work, however, something often gets lost in the translation. (200) Commissioning of artworks by large, established museums is often beneficial in this sense, because it allows an artist to explore the form with the comfort of knowing he or she will be able to survive economically. (201)

Point-to-Point  

In 2001 the Whitney Museum of American Art commissioned Napier to produce Point-to-Point for the show Data Dynamics .   The piece, which was funded in part by the Greenwall Foundation with additional support coming from Thundergulch, (202) was a networked installation consisting of a website, computer, projector and video cameras. (203)   By existing as both a website and a multimedia installation, Point-to-Point examined the relationship of those engaged in the brick-and-mortar museum to those viewing the piece though the internet. (204) The public piece used video cameras to track the motion of people as they walked through the unmarked area in the gallery where the installation was situated. (205) Robotics vision tracking software detected the presence of people in the designated space and translated their movements into screen coordinates that were then transmitted over the internet. (206) The actions of the museum visitors were then converted into a stream of text and punctuation that was projected on to a wall in the exhibition as well as on the internet, making it possible for web visitors to view the motion of people in the museum in real time. (207)

The text, which was created by asking users of the Point-to-Point website questions like, "Who are you?" and then allowing them to use their mouse to draw on the screen, connected the virtual users with their physical counterparts inside the museum. (208) The project, which resulted in the accumulation of a trail of text recording of every person who passed through the work, transformed the gallery into a performance space where museum visitors unknowingly participated and contributed to the work simply by walking into the area. (209) The artwork also becomes a "window" through which online visitors can track the progress of those inside the museum, and museum visitors watch the textual process of those interacting online. (210) According to Napier, Point-to-Point creates an experience where "words and sentences flit across the screen, uprooted from their traditional row by row structure, forming a tenuous, fleeting connection between strangers." (211) Examining the relationship between physical data and virtual space is a common thread that runs through much of Napier's work.   By allowing those in a physical place to interact with web users though the same screen, the artwork is able to merge the activity of two spaces into a single display. (212)

While the pieces Napier produced for both 010101 and Data Dynamics were based on similar principles, the nature of each exhibition certainly influenced the ways in which his ideas were manifested. Napier admits that he often creates different works for museums than he would for his own site because museums create a public experience rather than a private one. (213)   Speaking of commissioning, Napier said:

"The common thread that I've experienced in all of these commissions is that the artwork starts as a text document that you're bound to... that starts to direct your creative process, rather than the other way around.   Although you can be the bad boy artist and throw the whole idea out, or bend it, and then face possible conflicts with curators and museums, I end up gauging, do I want to fight with what I wrote?   And I'm not even saying that's necessarily bad or good; I'm just saying that it has a big impact on what's created."(214)

The exhibitions' curatorial staffs also influenced the way in which Napier created both of the works. The commissions happened in sequence, with the offer for Feed coming well in advance while Point-to-Point was agreed upon closer to the opening of the exhibition, which made Feed a "done deal" before the Data Dynamic show was offered. (215)   During the creation of Feed , Benjamin Weil was distant, giving Napier the impression that "he [Weil] believes that artists do what artists do, and it's not his job to instruct or manage artists." (216)   Never asking "is this appropriate?" or "What do you mean by this?" Weil allowed Napier to work out his own solutions to his artistic questions. (217)   Christiane Paul, choosing Point-to-Point out of three separate ideas, was much more involved, but "still very open about the nature of the project," according to Napier. (218)

Conclusions

In comparison to earlier forms of media art, such as photography and video, which spent years on the countercultural fringes before being taken seriously as fine art forms and accepted into museums, internet art is still in a formative stage.   It has become culturally irresponsible and problematic for contemporary museums to continue to exclude internet art from their collection since internet artists have been creating online work for over a decade.   Regardless of what occurs within the museum, however, dedicated internet artists will continue the struggle of monetarily supporting themselves while participating in the creation of the form.   Independent of the curatorial staff of contemporary museums, Rhizome and The Thing will continue to host online art and encourage discussions about new media practices.   While online galleries are beneficial to the form, the capability of physical museums to alleviate internet art's problem of invisibility should not be ignored.   Because curators have the ability to choose what type of exhibitions to hold, if exhibitions similar to Data Dynamics continue to be held, internet art may be forever doomed to installation whereas if museums take 010101: Art in Technological Times as a model, internet art may never enter the physical museum.  

After a decade of being conceived outside the museum walls, internet art must be allowed to continue on its trajectory of personal interaction, but simply hosting work on a museum site is insufficient. Never permitted to enter into the physical museum, Mark Napier's Feed remained loyal to the tradition of internet art and although Point-to-Point was certainly worth of its location within the museum, internet art installation exhibitions should not become the exclusive way the form is displayed.  Because the way in which internet art is portrayed in the museum will influence how it is recorded in art history, it is important that the form affects the museum exhibition and not vice versa. A balance must be made between the ways the Whitney and the San Francisco MOMA displayed internet art that allows personal, interactive internet art to exist in the physical museum without the crutch of installation.   Computers, connected to the world wide web through actual internet service providers rather than artificially fast internal severs, must be permanently installed in the museum, allowing internet art to make use of the reputation and reach of the museum while respecting and maintaining the individualistic nature of the form.   Museums must continue to commission and display internet art on their institutional web sites but must also create an environment within the museum dedicated to informing visitors of the form's existence and creating a dialog that addresses new media in order to assure the form's success and give internet art the prestige it deserves.

Further Reading

Dia Center for the Arts Web Projects
Tate Online Net Art
Centre Pompidou Net Art
Guggenheim Internet Art
Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles Digital Gallery

Works Cited

Baumgaertel, Tilman.   "Art becomes an experience rather than a physical object: Interview with Mark Napier." Posting on < http://www.rhizome.org > 3 July 2001.

Benjamin, Walter.   "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."   Illuminations . Ed. Hannah Ardndt.   Trans. Harry Zohn.   New York: Harcort Brace, 1968.

Berwick, Carly.   "The New New-Media Blitz."   ArtNews.com .   April 2001. < http://marknapier.com/presskit/articles/artnews_april2001/artnews_newnewmedia.htm >

Broegger, Andreas.   "The Aesthetics of Programming: Interview with Mark Napier." Hvedekorn .   November 2000. <http://www.hvedekorn.dk/>

Cook, Sarah.   "An Interview with Larry Rinder." Curatorial Resource for Upstart Media Bliss .   27, March 2001.  

-- "An Interview with Christiane Paul."   Curatorial Resource for Upstart Media Bliss .   28 March 2001.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online.   " Java ."   10 April 2006. <http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368472?query=java&ct= >.

-- "Java Script." 10 April 2006. < http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368475?query=javascript&ct= >.

-- " Streaming ." 10 April 2006.< http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9379701?query=streaming&ct= >.

Frieling, Rudolf and Dieter Daniels, ed. Media Art Net (Medien Kunst Netz). New York: Springer Wien, 2004.

Gibbs, Michael.   "Data Dynamics."   Art Monthly .   June 2001, Vol 4, pp 247.

Graham, Beryl.   "Curating New Media Art: SFMoMA and 010101 ."   Curatorial Resource for Upstart Media Bliss, 2002.

Greene Rachel.   Internet Art .   London: Thames and Hudson, 2004.

Ippolito, Jon.   "Interview with Mark Napier." January 2002.   < < http://marknapier.com/presskit/articles/ippolito_interview/ippolito_netflag_interview.htm > 20 January 2006.

-- "Ten Myths of Internet Art." Leonardo Vol 35, No 5: 485-498.

Kimmelman, Michael.   "Art Review; Creativity, Digitally Remastered."   The New York Times Company .   23 March 2001.

Lycos Webmaster - Internet and Website Building Glossary and Vocabulary.   "DHTML."   23 April 2006. <http://webmaster.lycos.co.uk/glossary/D/>.

-- "Perl."   23 April 2006. <http://webmaster.lycos.co.uk/glossary/P/>.

Mirapaul, Matthew.   "Selling and Collecting the Intangible, at $1,000 a Share." The New York Times .   29 April 2002.

Mitchell, W.T.J.   The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era .   Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1992.

Morris, Susan.   "Museums and New Media Art." The Rockefeller Foundation, October 2001.

Napier, Mark.   About Point -To-Point .   2001.   4 December 2005] < http://www.potatoland.org/point/about.html >

-- About FEED .   4 December 2005.   <http://potatoland.org/feed/about.html>

-- FEED . 4 December 2005.   < http://potatoland.org/feed >

-- How it Works .   2001.   4 December 2005 < http://www.potatoland.org/point/howitworks.html >

-- potatoland.blog . ed. Liza Sabater and culturekitchen. 15 December 2005. <http://www.culturekitchen.com/potatoland/archives/cat_art.html >

-- potatoland .   4 December 2005. < http://www.potatoland.org >

-- Shred .   4 December 2005.   < www.potatoland.org/shredder/welcome.html >

-- The Digital Landfill .   4 December 2005.   < http://www.potatoland.org/landfill/>

--"Undergraduate Research Request."   Email to the Author.   7 April 2006.

-- Waiting Room .   4 December 2005.   < http://www.potatoland.org/waitingroom/>

Ojeda-Zapata, Julio.   "Digital Watch." I.D. Magazine May 2001, Vol 48, No 3: pp 88.

Paul, Christine.   Digital Art .   London: Thames and Hudson, 2003.

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.   010101: Art in Technological Times .   San Francisco: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 2001.

-- 010101 Art in Technological Times .   2001.   4 December 2005. <http://010101.sfmoma.org>

-- SFMOMA, E.SPACE. MAIN .   20 January 2006.   < http://www.sfmoma.org/espace/espace_overview.html >

-- SFMOMA, Press Room, Archive .   2000.   5 April 2006.   < sfmoma.com/press/pressroom.asp?arch=y&id=34&do=events press release>

Spingarn-Koff, Jason. "A full-scale fete for NetArt." Wired .   29 July 2002.

Stallabrass, Julian.   Internet Art: The Online Clash of Culture and Commerce .   London: Tate Publications, 2003.

Weibel, Peter and Timothy Druckrey, ed. Net_Condition: Art and Global Media .   Mass: MIT Press, 2001.

Whitney Museum of American Art.   " BitStreams, Exploring the Importance of Digital Technology in American Art, To Open At the Whitney on March 22 ."   Press Release.   March 2001.

" Data Dynamics Presents Internet Artworks Online and at the Whitney ."   Press Release.   March 2001.

-- Data Dynamics: Mark Napier .   20 January 2005.   <http://artport.whitney.org/exhibitions/datadynamics/napier.shtml>

-- Data Dynamics .   2001.   20 January 2006.   < http://www.whitney.org/datadynamics/ >.