The case presented in Web Work: A History of Net Art is one that compares internet art to the industrial revolution. Essentially, the argument presented is that dadaists and surrealists were able to express themselves on a new medium, which allowed for Net Art to grow. And even though I believe this, just because it makes sense, it opens the floor to a lot of unanswered questions about the availability of art and the dream of an interconnected world, like many would wish for. The idea that art will unite the world is definitely something I think is discussed in the piece, where the coverage of 1995-1997 art pieces was certainly prevalent, but the lack of general proof has scared off this idea. For example, this is to also neglect the dot com bubble and the expansion of the internet since the inception of it, which begs the question: where did internet art go? Because of the rampant desire of the internet to be constantly monitored and surveyed by corporations, there are big questions to really understand what in the hell we want to consume. A good example of this might be the art that we see in museums, where we go as a nice date or excursion on break. In a museum, much of the artwork that is presented is either historically based or it is medium based. For example, in the MOMA, every floor is dedicated to art on canvas. There are many renditions of these mediums, but they remain rather stable. Same with The Whitney, where each collection houses a series of paintings and videos and interactive showcases. None of these, or at least the museums that I have been to, house internet art. I, for one, before coming into IMA, did not even know of the existence of INternet art. And so I wonder, is it something to be shared, or is it not? I would assume it is something to be shared, and so I think that it might want to be in a museum. But this is furthermore not the case. And so I then ask, what was the point of net art? Is it still around. This question puzzles me.