> 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.