Here's a good description of net art, it's: "popular, transient, expendable, low-cost, mass-produced, young, witty, sexy, gimmicky, glamorous, and Big Business"

Only, this list wasn't devised as a description of net art. It's Richard Hamilton describing Pop-Art in the late 50's. Eery, eh? So, wow! If we consider the primary proponents of these two "schools", we're looking to try to find a balance between Clement Greenberg and Arthur Danto. That's pretty intense. I came across a true gem of a find just yesterday. In the October, 2004 issue of ArtForum, they published a previously unpublished lecture given by Greenberg on... Pop-Art. Very interesting read but not surprising that he didn't care for it all. Here's a great quote from the lecture: "But Pop art has not yet produced anything that has given me, for one, pause; moved me deeply; that has challenged my taste or capacities and forced me to expand them."

Danto on the other hand says that art's flight from Abstract Expressionism (Greenberg's forte) is a turning point where art becomes philosophy which sounds to me like something very challenging and deeply moving.