yes

I had the same idea three years later.

I guess what I'm saying is that this is the internet that I grew up with, and--curatorial transgression and "irony" aside--I think it's kind of great to watch, and even more fun to see in an "art" context. The content is not secondary to the concept, in my mind, although I understand that other interpretations would have it that way.

I know what you mean Tom, but I still have to argue for engagement over accuracy. Relegating net art to framed documents and snapshots would seem to be a step backwards for the form. Net art is way different than performance art in a couple fundamental ways, so it seems counter-intuitive to treat them in the same neutered, sterilized way in a gallery context.

There is a "you had to be there" imperative to the Chris Burden documentation that most net art purposefully circumvents. Internet viewers need not worry that they are getting an "authentic" experience with an art, since use of the internet as a medium in many ways questions what "authenticity" is anyway. I think documentation would have been helpful in the case of Mypsace Intro Playlist, but actually seeing the videos is the big thing.

While this would probably be the "most accurate representation" of a work of art originally intended for the internet, it also sounds like no fun. While the video art incarnation of Myspace Intro Playlist at YTJ has led to at least one pretty bad misinterpretation, it was at least effective in engaging an audience in a way that I suspect sheets of papers and screenshots tacked to the wall might not have been. (Also not convinced that Davis' dopiness is entirely due to a curatorial mis-step, dude needs to google some stuff.)

A "net art = video in galleries" formula can't be taken as the standard for materialization of this kind of art -- or even a particularly good example -- but most current net art relies on visual aesthetics as well as the networked environment it is presented on. To reduce works like Myspace Intro Playlist to words on a page would explain (rather than display) their networked elements while mostly disregarding other aesthetic qualities. YouTube is a website for videos, after all.

Maybe net art will never materialize satisfactorily, but as what we think of as the internet expands to include (and subsequently dominate) nearly every facet of modern life I find it hard to believe that galleries and museums will be exempt. Thanks to mobile technologies, there is no longer any reason to associate the internet exclusively with your desk, or even your laptop. What if museum-goers were able to use their phones (or brain-chips!) to treat Myspace Intro Playlist as a hyperlink to the "original," online work? That would be cool.