Have been enjoying the writing on the blog Post Internet.
A dissenting remark: the author misinterprets Guthrie Lonergan's phrase "internet aware art" based on a interview Lonergan gave (where he didn't define the term) as opposed to a more recent public talk (where he did give a definition). See discussion on Rhizome. Post Internet subscribes to Marisa Olson's idea in her piece Netacronyms and this interview of an art based on internet jargon and conventions, whereas Lonergan was talking about art made offline with an eye to how it would look on the internet (for example on the website Vvork, where art is represented by a single installation shot and compelling tag line). The latter is a more subtle and caustic notion.
A quibble: Post Internet's recent analysis of Travis Hallenbeck's Tinypic Video Thumbnails, an 85 page artist’s book and .pdf, is excellent but mistakes the source of the thumbnails collected in the book. It is not YouTube, which PI gives considerable space to describing, but a less-well-known image and video hosting service called Tinypic. Tinypic is very popular with children, which explains the prevalence of "youthful goofing around and skateboarding." Unlike YouTube it doesn't use the middle frame of the video for a screen shot. The screen shots that Hallenbeck chose for his book are generated by some automatic, server-side process (the selected thumbnail frame seems to be occurring about two seconds into the video) but this makes PI's discussion of the folklore of the middle frame mostly superfluous.
Update: Deleted some portions of this post. Still thinking about some of the issues of post-internet art.
Update 2: Ha, whoops, the pre-edited version of this post was picked up by a spam blog and showed up in Post Internet's trackback. PI revised the Hallenbeck post, splitting it into two, a discussion of the YouTube middle frame and a discussion of Hallenbeck's Tinypic thumbnail book. PI has also added an afterward to the post referencing "internet aware art." More on that later.
Update 3: Forgot an intermediate step in the timeline of critical massaging of the term "internet aware art." After the Net Aesthetics 2.0 panel in 2008 at the New Museum, Paddy Johnson mentioned Ed Halter's use of the term and Lonergan commented: "'internet aware artist' is partially a sarcastic joke, because everyone is supposedly quite aware of the internet (but the art is not yet.) i’d bet its the same thing that you were/are talking about, Marisa, can’t wait to hear your response in rhizome board dudeland." A year later, in his Light Industry talk, he proposed the "art made for the net" definition.