While I value and readily acknowledge the contributions post-Internet art has made to society, I am not a particular fan of the coined term, ‘post-Internet’; personally, I think it is a little confusing as art derived from the Internet still utilizes the online medium as a means of dissemination and creativity. Even art that is created with respect to a hybrid of physical and online mediums, especially with the intent to affect some sort of societal aspect, unfortunately does not appear to be ‘post’ Internet, considering the use of the Internet is a focal point of behind the creation of the piece or its intent. Additionally, the term’s broadness does not help promote any sort of concrete definition that provides an understanding either, if an artist refers to themselves as a post-Internet artist, what can an outsider tell from that information? That the artist’s work utilizes some sort of cross between an online and physical space, ultimately that says next to nothing substantive about the content of the work or the piece’s intent to a prospective audience. That brings us to the second more nuanced meaning most aligned with post-Internet art, the concept that post-Internet art, in addition to being some sort of medium hybrid, must also provide some sort of social commentary. While this second detail assists in constructing a more concrete definition for an outsider, the broadness of social aspects and what they mean from a content point of view once again can leave an outsider with more questions than answers. Does this artist’s social commentary examine race, religion, sex, gender, or any combination of social aspects? Would someone from a different country or culture perceive an artist’s content as a social commentary, especially if the intended social commentary is not within their country or culture’s purview? While I think post-Internet artwork seeks to make art more accessible and recognizable to both artists and viewers by being intentionally broad in its criteria and definitions, with the intention of reaching more people in more locations, I think the caveat comes with an art world outsider not being able to readily understand the type and significance of post-Internet art beyond the simple fact that it is a hybrid of mediums and intends to highlight social aspect within an ever increasing range of social plights.
I would be remiss if I did not comment on the importance surrounding the social aspects brought into the spotlight through post-Internet art, the ability to bring sordid practices into the public eye has been a profound boon throughout the Internet age. Especially in today’s times, which are rife with conflicts, both new and old, artworks which stimulate a response to social plights are essential to the formation of meaningful dialogues that address these problems. Even the artworks which elicit vitriol provide a valuable indicator of how far our societal progress, or lack thereof, stands. The age of the Internet and even the ‘post-Internet’ age have just made it increasingly more difficult to sweep societal problems back under the rug of history under the guise of progress.