> it is important. i don't know the answers.

> i agree being there is not the same as seeing it on a screen. no question. but the question is what to say/think about that difference.

> how to talk about it.

> making something for the computer is not the same as making something real and then it being reproduced online.


> a .jpg of an owens painting is simply going to be better to look at than a .jpg created by a lesser artist in photoshop.

> an example of web-only art which is worthy of discussion is 'explodingdog.com'

> i don't know of much else.

> there are brilliant things here and there 'strindberg and helium' and a few other things.

> the list of things made for the web that are worth spending a lot of time on is small.

> i think tentatively my position will be that real life is better but that pixilation of things (.jpgs of owens, etc) is better than nothing.

> more work needs to be done in this area.