I think it is good to separate “the art world” as a concept from the physical spaces of the galleries and museums. What I suggested is that the internet will change ability of those who control those physical spaces to define art. That is not to say that the spaces themselves will disappear, or cease to have a function — anymore than the physical artwork will disappear.

At Art News Blog today there was an interesting story about a real gallery expanding onto the internet as an “open gallery”. I find this related to our discussion here. This is a curious phenomenon. Are we seeing the gallery encroaching on the web, or the web encroaching on the gallery? It seems ambiguous. The boundaries become blurred.

Thanks for the link….I believe you have answered the question of why galleries must exist even with the internet proliferating to the art world….sometimes you just need to see an image in person!

On reader emailed me about the potential to manipulate images at the digital level. This is another thing to think about; should we think of the original artwork, or as the digital image — however manipulated — as the final work?

Clearly, the internet presents its own set of problems, as does the art world of the dealers and curators. It seems that the only hope for the artist is to keep a clear sense of the aesthetic goal and try to make the most of the mode of presentation, without being deflected from his or her purpose.