Digital art and curating; 8 April – 2 May 2008

Welcome to the Axis online forum on Digital Art and Curating. To get us started I thought I'd post one of MA student Teresa Barun's question; “Can a website be curated?” Discuss....

I would like to ask all those contributing whether or not they think the term "Curator" needs to reassessed when it comes to Digital Art or New Media. In a field where it seems we are required to know a little about a lot, has the role of the all knowing expert become redundant?

It is an interesting area Teresa, and I think it very much depends on the type of website you are considering. In a time when web 2.0 philosophy promotes collective intelligence and mass contribution, who has the right to decide whether or not someone's contribution is valid. A project we recently commissioned and completed called the Bold Street Project (www.boldstreet.org.uk/blog) was intentionally not curated as it worked for that particular project, which was steeped in a collaborative setting. Furthermore, if an artist creates an online or web based piece of art, they obviously have a degree of technical capability and have considered how the work is to be displayed quite carefully. Without a similar level of knowledge, I would imagine from a curatorial point of view it would be quite difficult to make suggestions around display and preservation....

The web is just like an other platform; you can create a space and choose to control it (and curate it)? or to open it and allow it to develop in an uncontrolled, organic way. This raises further issues though. (Like the link I just made between curating and controlling - one for another post altogether I think..)

The art web and the business web: who's leading? I'm a web person through and through having gained experience working for leading UK digital media agencies and from my experience with business as with the arts, often the clients 'managing', 'commissioning' and curating even, a web project know little about the web. And whilst I don't think you need formal qualifications to curate, you do need to have an understanding of your platform; whatever platform it is. Perhaps the arts online suffer from a skills gap? Businesses, on the other hand have become much more web savvy recently as they use it and shape it for to sell their products. Are the Arts and Design Industries slow to catch up?

Is the web a recognised platform in art and design education in 2008? I'd like to hear from the students. When I studied Arts Marketing, it was seen by some of my tutors a 'fad'. "Online art won't work: the 24 hour museum was too clunky for most of us and surely you'd want to see a painting in the flesh" right? I disagreed, and dreamed of collaboration and democratic publishing, but of course didn't forsee the web as we know it today. But that was when the web was pretty much a one way publishing platform. The audience was very much the other side of the screen. The web today is a space - an exhibition space, and a creation space. Plus it has all sorts of other things built in - great access, great reach, fabulous preservation and archiving potential, and it's relatively low cost compared to other spaces. Sure you need some technical understanding to use it to its full potential, but that's true also of a white cube. Is it?

In the case of the web, how can the role of Curating avoid becoming political, and should it? I am thinking of my experiences in East Asia in this context as regards the media and the arts in general.

I think there is a lot of awareness of the web as a genuine platform within art education. I'm not sure it's so widely recognised in curatorial courses (ours excepted, since we're having this debate!) There's a difference here between 'curating digital art' and 'digital curation'. When we're talking about art produced for new media, the role of the curator doesn't seem much different - selection, knowing the audience, knowing the platform. But when it's digital curation of traditionally made art, things get more complicated. I get the feeling that many museums and galleries are paying lip service to the idea of the web without trying to really engage with it. They may be right, since the gallery role is that experience of art 'in the flesh'. But there are exceptions - some are beginning to use interactive and collaborative potential of the internet as a complement to their traditional exhibitions. I think we'll be seeing much more of this!

I agree that the web will continue to become an important part of our museums/galleries, although they will never substitute the experience of a ‘live’ exhibition, they are very useful for communicating a museums goals and objective, and allowing the audience to engage with the exhibition at another level. I think that it’s interesting that you mentioned our course as attentive to the importance of the web, and I think that other courses need to be better equipped to incorporate this in to their programmes, because undoubtedly this will be an important thing for us as curators to consider in the future, as people today want things at their figure tips.

That's a good question and leads to the "hot" question what "Curating" and a Curator today really means and how the use of these terms points towards changing curatorial practices. Is the Curator still the all knowing expert? I think these times are over. Or at least there are many different curatorial roles. We even have to fight against an inflationary use of the terms. Everything tends to be curated. Many a times the simple organizing of an event seems to get confused with curating. Where are the boundaries? When can managing an event become curating or vice versa? Or why is the editor of a magazine still called editor and not curator..?? (tnx god he still is..) Maybe it would be useful to discuss this too during the course of this forum and try to find some definitions...

The web leads by far. RSS? Forums? Email lists? Trackback? Imagine how great an institution you would get if a gallery or museum listened and responded as quickly as an A-list blogger. The first place that people turn to for culture is the web, because it's easy and it's quick and it's changeable. Add to that the fact that you can get involved in a way that might take years in real life (by, say, emailing the blogger or artist whom you were interested in) and you find yourself in a completely different place from current institutions. Why can't we see exhibitions comprised of pieces selected by the public, with help from curators? It seems like a total no-brainer, until you come into contact with middle management and their lack of technological smarts. I also like Zefranks take on curating vs. the internet: www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/07/071406.html

Following on from Pete's point, as Art Organisations or Cultural Institutions do we need to move away from looking at audiences, to addressing our users as a community and/or producers, and if so, would this shift make curators facilitators of collaborations?

"Uncurating" I went to an 'unexhibition' last year in Rotterdam. 'Unorganised' by Media Artist Rui Guerra. It followed the trend in unconferences, Barcamps, etc. It was the 'uncurated' version of DEAF -the Dutch Electronic Art Festival. undeaf.v2.nl I enjoyed it, although I personally preferred the geekier barcamps. Some argued the art 'on show' was not so good. A little hippy perhaps. So does uncurated = no good? I'm not saying so, but it raised all sorts of questions about the role of the curator. Another key aspect of this was that it was only made possible because of the web - the artists were networked enough online to hear about it, to attend, to make, to bring and to be the artwork. Has anyone been to anything similar and what are your thoughts on the 'un' model in terms of curating?

There definitely seems to be a discussion arising here around the validity of the 'curator' or 'editor' with the rise of user generated broadcast media - which can expand beyond the web and into the ability to broadcast content through other media channels as well. Katie - could you explain a bit more about what a Barcamp is and what happened at this 'Unorganised' event? Am I right in thinking that the whilst the event was uncurated it was formed through the attendance of artists? I think it is interesting that Pete refers to the 'public' deciding what is in museums and galleries, which whilst it can include artists, it is a more expansive opening up of the curatorial process - to the public who I would say have traditionally been regarded with, dare I say it, fear when it comes to democraticising the curatorial process (what if they choose something awful?)......

Well, regular curators choose awful stuff all the time. In fact, we seem to be going through a drought of well-thought out curatorial practice (present company excepted, of course:) owing to a widespread lack of true critical debate. The only area where out-and-out criticism of artworld doings seems to be happening is online, as far too often the writers for once-critical magazines don't wish to make enemies or put themselves out of a job. Also, a barcamp is a user generated conference for people interested in web technology, where everybody who comes along has to give (or help present) a talk, thus turning the audience into proactive creators as well as consumers of the culture they are discussing. Apparently, the talk on 'how to make a cup of tea' is quite a common one for people to take part in. It's worth noting that the wikipedia page for 'barcamp' is top google so I shouldn't have to tell you this, because all the information you need for any obscure subject is two minutes away.

Your comment about museums paying a lot of lip service to the web is true in that they realise the importance of it as a medium to reach new audiences and get more visitors in a virtual space/online platform. However, having visited two of the top museums in the UK (the V&A and the Tate Modern) it seems both operate their online offering (including exhbition microsites) through either Web teams or Interpretation departments. The role of the curator in terms of digital technologies, whether multimedia pda devices or websites lies in the hands of what I'll term 'interpreters', not curators as such. I think that the role of the curator is and has evolved dramatically, at least in terms of how many contemporary curators view themselves, and this means they need to break out of the traditional confines of the term 'curator' to be involved in the production and and vision for curating the digital now and in the future.

BAR Camp 2005 -- Participants in a presentation simultaneously comment, listen, and follow along on their screens. Photo taken by ioerror. This photo is Wikimedia Commons. Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BarCamp

I agree with you ariana - it seems that whole new jobs are being created for interpreters, educators, facilitators etc in the larger museums and galleries that are taking on some of the roles usually employed by curators. And the web is a big part of this. Maybe it's just the fact that technology moves so fast that the curator doesn't have time to perform traditional duties as well as stay abreast of all the latest news from the digital world? It's an interesting development and I wonder what it means for us as students looking toward future employment.

Actually I'd be interested in knowing if those reading this forum would object to any of these other terms - interpreter, exhibition manager, events organiser and so on. The word 'curate' originally meant 'to care for'. I'm going to be a bit controversial and say that the ones to whom the term really applies today are specialists in large museums who have some conservation / research role. Contemporary practice has taken the word over and given it a meaning of 'selection', but imo interpreter or organiser works just as well. What do you think - are there special skills beyond these that make the term we use to describe ourselves important?

with regards to the "public choosing something awful", I do agree that this is probably the biggest fear amongst arts professionals (for the record I think it's hugely exciting) as historically what we deem collaborative or community arts has not been held in as high regard or given the same critical kudos as "real art". The reaction in some instances seems to be "thats really nice, but now lets have some real art". I've recently come back from a conference in Europe where this very subject was debated extensively and boiled down to the inevitable process versus product debate. However I think the current climate demands both, to use television as an example, people still want quality but they want to chose how and when they consume it.

Is the term "curator" about status, is that why we are clinging to it?

The validity of the curator is indeed a topic needing much further consideration, but I think for the purposes of a discussion centered around Digital Curating, perhaps we need to think more about the role of the spectator. Is it not a fair assessment to refer to the exhibition visitor as the interpretor and not the curator? Or perhaps they both are but on different levels? I think the pivotal issue here is a consideration of how successfully the object/work is communicated to the audience, and in what setting.

Interpretative methods, and curatorial method work on the knowledge that all visitors will engage with the display in a unique way, so in that respect all visitors can be interpreters. But museum interpretation from what I understand is a very different thing, involving building a meaningful and memorable connection between visitor and exhibit, and not just providing information. I find it difficult to see how this would be transferred to the web, you can't really 'experience' the web like you can a real exhibit. So maybe good communication with the audience is much more effective away from the digital domain.

But thats just it! You can indeed experience the web, its just a different experience to a gallery based one and one we are not familiar with. That's exactly why I wanted to talk about this topic, there hasn't been, as far as im aware, a suggestion of what that web experience might be. We're thinking and talking about digital works as if they are formed of physical parts which I think is completly the wrong way to go about it. If we're talking about something that is, for want of a better word, virtual, then we need to use the appropriate virtual language. We need to work on the development of a discourse for the digital, instead of trying to lump it together with design or art. Or if the digital does exist somewhere betwix the two surely that warrants further research on the part of the curator?

Clay Sharkey's recently got a lot of traction with his idea that a communication medium doesn't get exciting until everybody is bored of it. As soon as you stop treating technology with kid gloves and start using it - and I mean really using it, like sending a text to your mum to say you'll be late - then you don't need words to say it because it works. And that's one of the big problems with the idea of digital curating, in that a lot of the time ideas get backed that haven't had a chance to fully shake themselves down into a true pattern of usefulness. Things that haven't yet seeped into the general consciousness do often have descriptive names, but they are used amongst the technical elite. Last year, they were using ‘microformat’ a lot, and the year before that ‘podcast’. This years hot thing is twitter, which is kind of a stripped-down facebook with mobile phone text access. I like it a lot, but I’ve not found any other arts-involved people using it.

In response to Tess' comment, below is an example of website that wasn't designed to communicate a galleries goal of objective but it was designed to be a gallery. www.thewonderfulnorth.com is an example of a self contained online gallery (the 'expo'), which isn't simply a display of documentation or an explanation of a 'real' exhibition but a project that has been researched and made for the internet.

And also in response to Lucy's question and comments about curation/control of digital media/online art: The Wonderful North is an example of a project where the artwork (made by Bryan and Laura Davies) was altered through its translation into 'web' format by the media company who put it together. The interface between the artists and the audience/website user was mediated, meaning the media company was akin to the gallery/institution. They controlled the look and feel of the website, they contextualised the artwork, writing the 'interpretation' which is displayed on the site. Being a media company this was all done from a mainstream corporate perspective rather than from an intellectual curatorial enquiry.

Here's an example of an approach that embodies some of the unique features of the web we've been discussing: www.whitney.org/arport/commissions/idealine.shtml It's curated in the sense of being a collection of web-based artworks, but presents them in the form of an interactive timeline. Another (bit dated) example from the Walker Art Gallery gallery9.walkerart.org/ Can anyone name some more recent examples?

Thanks for posting that - The Wonderful North is a really good example of a fully virtual gallery. I imagine the artists have collected data about its use. It would be interesting to know how long people stay on the site, how many artworks they viewed, how many spaces they entered. Seems like that's partly what's missing in terms of curating for the web - the sense of visitor experience, which is much easier to gauge in a real gallery. But people who have taken the trouble to build such a site must have provided for this?

I found the Wonderful North website, very intriguing, thanks for that. I can see that in this context, a sort of self contained website, could be very effective and although a lot of thought and curation has gone on here it's alot more flexible for the user, who can dip in and out of what ever they choose. This flexibility is definitely one of the advantages of viewing exhibitions on the web.

Hi Everyone - I've been following your posts with interest, and would like to add a few thoughts. Maybe contemporary curatorial practice has extended it's role from the 'duty of care' of objects, to the facilitation of social engagement with creative processes. In both socially engaged art and new media art, the 'experience' is a process of interaction or participation. In curatorial terms this requires complex support for audiences and participants to engage with ongoing and often open-ended creative processes both online or offline.

The term 'curator' is definitely an interesting study in how the original meaning has become adapted and adopted for new purposes as artistic practice has progressed. I have also noticed it used increasingly in different situations, specifically in relation to music festivals such as All Tomorrow's Parties, where different bands and musicians 'curate' the line up for each festival.

The supplement in April's a-n 'Production Lines' www.a-n.co.uk/production_lines talks about the 'Producer' as having a "job [that] involves an all-encompassing, interwoven set of responsibilities necessary to make great ideas and projects happen" (Kate Tyndall quoted by Charlotte Frost). Interestingly the examples of producers in this article are working with artists mainly in new media, digital and non-gallery based practices. So if producers are focusing on the creation of new work - is the curator then the 'carer of objects' - be they real or virtual that are already in existence?

So as Ele says, the role of the curator has progressed in line with the needs of current practice (whilst also perhaps not progressing in some cases!) and becomes even more complex when we start to consider artist-curators and producers.

Curatorial practice also involves contextualising objects, ideas and creative processes - within the subject area and to a wider audience. My www.open-source-embroidery.org.uk project can be categorised as both a curatorial and an artistic project. But I think the common role is that of facilitator. I can be a curator-facilitator, or an researcher-facilitator, or an artist-facilitator. Either way I am developing or revealing connections between different kinds of making (programming and needlework crafts). The focus of the project is making objects that reveal the processes of the web, and making software or websites that reveal the processes of craft.

Going back to some of the earlier discussion - I think that socially engaged new media art operates both in a located place and through online distributed networks. However I think there's often a tendency for us to focus on either the online or the located space, and forget to facilitate the interaction between the two. eg. How do the people who met Laura and Bryan on their trip find out about the work online several months later? How do people find out about the work?

While acknowledging that the forum's aim is to explore the challenges and opportunities posed by curating digital/online work, i feel that the role of the curator and attendant semantic debates about what that constitutes has been more or less covered. so i'm chucking a couple of new seeds into the ring . . . I've worked in new media since 2001, explored the creative applications and potential of emergent technology and guided development of audio-visual software for artistic and educational contexts. I have grown increasingly disillusioned with the capacity of technology based, digital/new media work to deliver satisfying emotional experiences. Maybe this is my problem - perhaps i'm looking in the wrong places or looking in the wrong way? I'd like to discover / be shown examples of digital/online work with a genuine emotional charge.

the most interesting thing about the net is that it's both immediate and unmediated, enabling 1000s of to share thoughts/feelings in response to issues in the public domain through forums like this. example - when the dreadful logo for the 2012 london olympics was revealed i was shown a forum where people had submitted their designs + thoughts/rants etc. there'd be considered designs featuring london landmarks etc followed by a rough drawing on a napkin of a toilet swallowing £ signs - brilliant stuff! and exciting because in those moments u felt part of a collective mind-buzz in a way only the big brain enables. another quick example is here - blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/04/delaney_on_monroe.html it'd be great to see collaborative online art projects which were equally fast and loose and utilised forum contexts.

I think the best new media projects or ones that succeed in creating an emotional response are ones that have a clear context. I have been working in one of the UK's leading New Media galleries for over 4 years and while exhibitions come and go, the success stories for me all have one thing in common, layers of meaning. I think unlike other arts forms, new media artwork needs this multi-layering. For example, the collaborative project I run (www.tenantspin.org) has one foot firmly in regeneration and social housing, and this offers a framework in which the work has some "real" impact and therefore the emotional charge you seek. Taste in art is subjective, emotions are much more universal. I think new media works have to be more than aesthetically pleasing, and I think artists working to do this have a greater chance of generating those emotional responses.

Increasingly in my work, I find myself acting as a "carer" or "curator" of sets of variables which promote creative production rather than actual artwork. Can we curate circumstances, platforms and/or conditions in which art can be created rather than art itself?

I agree, I find that historically people have treated online as separate, alternative, 'virtual' - as in not 'real'. Online in 2008 is thankfully less inhabited by 'avatars' and more influenced by real people. Social networks are indeed real networks of real people being themselves. An example of a project which blends people and places online and offline is The Bold Street Project www.boldstreet.org.uk/blog/ which used many online platforms to extend its audience, and to enable new collaborators to contribute. It blended traditional exhibition with informal interactions. The public, the artists (Michelle Wren, Katie Lips, tenantspin), the collaborators (of which there were hundreds), the audience, and the curators (Alan Dunn, Patrick Fox, tenantspin) all worked together.

I love www.artrabbit.com (I'm the holy grail of 'user as copromoter' or 'audience as contributor' - a marketeer's dream). But more importantly services like art rabbit and the proliferation of art blogs and fora mean that the one way influence of art 'on' an audience is no more. Audiences are influencing each other through digital dialogues. Just as corporates are understanding this new dynamic in terms of the conversations their customers are having about their brands, curators, and arts marketeers will have to understand more about this new possibility for audiences to influence each other. Digital, online and 2.0 means art (and everything else) is no longer about 'give and take'.

I agree completly, but would like to question whether audiences are influencing each other as Katie writes, simply because musuems/curators/websites encourage them to? Perhaps the industry has learnt that in order to get the maxium out of their audiences they have to give and then give again.

Just to let everyone know - we are going to keep the forum open for at least another week- there seems to be plenty more to say on this topic so keep your thoughts, responses and questions coming.

Are we talking about audiences for art or web users interested in culture? I suggest that using the web as a tool to recruit audiences for a gallery is distinct from an online space in which a community of interest come together to discuss their practice and ideas (whether this is dog-shows, art or knitting).

"Curator" did not exist ten years ago, in China. we are making 1,200 museums bloom recently,.Curator and curating become really big things. Things are moving to digital curating which is really challenges. Does digial curating meaning is art object in virtual space. or digial art object in really space?

In response to Ellie's comment, I think that audiences, reviewers, critics etc have always influenced each other just that in todays online world it's easier to see, to find; and the influence / documentation sticks around longer. I also don't think that people need to be encouraged to feedback - but true - the new web platforms make it easier to do so online. Patrick and I have been working on a sort of 2.0 manifesto for cultural organisations relating to how they view, treat and respond to audiences. Part of this manifesto is the point that 'the audience has the right to feedback' - and now they have more of a public and influential means to feedback. Patrick - maybe you want to expand on the role and expectation of the audience? I don't think for example that it is about giving then giving again - rather I feel that art providers can take / learn from their audience.

Katie, did you mean that part of your manifesto is to declare that the audience has the right to feedback, or that its an issue you wish to grapple with? Also, am I right in thinking that you think the give/take ratio falls on more equal terms? As opposed to my view that perhaps art providers give more? I do however, somewhat contradictorily, agree that museums etc. take but the reason for that taking is arguably to enable them to be better at giving back. I would be very interested to read more on the role and expectation of the audience.

Ellie, I think that most of the time to 'provider' gives more - absolutely. But I do think that the give/take ratio *might* be leveling a bit. Technology tools are letting artists & arts marketeers learn more about the audience; and enabling audiences to have more of a role. Where there was once a solid line 'between' artist and audience, I think that divide might show some cracks! 'Porosity' is a term I've heard a lot recently - in relation to how (arts) organisations can learn from their audience / community and 'soak up' the knowledge and ideas around them? All of this is 'to be grappled with' and something I'm interested in exploring more.

A bit more on ArtRabbit.com.......................... In Artrabbit I can find new info (web 1.0), I can share my exhibitions (web 1.5) and i can see who else is going to / liking a show, and see what else they like too and my actions and data is shared to enable a 'crowd view'.(2.0). On a business level artrabbit is great for finding out what the most popular is. But as it's still relatively small it's also quite easy to skew. We pushed a recent project to near the top of the most popular list (our community arts project appeared to have a bigger draw than Anthony Gormley in the ratings) just by getting a few of our community members to show support. So great way to market your exhibition. On a user level it plays to the voyeur in us all - we all like to see what others find interesting. But honestly - is this the first time as an arts audience member that I can see what other arts audience members think?

At the Tate Liverpool the reading room incorporates comment cards on a 'audience wall' where, having seen the show you could add a comment card to a wall of comments. You can say what you like, put it where you like and read what other people have had to say. (I'm sure this is not the only gallery that has such a 'device'.) Still nice to see it in a low fi, accessible, non-techy way. Taking this further, Tate is working with a media agency to extend this 'audience voice' concept: www.artinliverpool.com/blog/blogarch/2008/02/be_the_face_of_tate_liverpool.php This all lead me to wonder "Why is 'asking people what they think' only just now starting to 'catch on' in the art world?"

The right to feedback and the importance of listening is a really interesting area and one could we do with looking towards the commercial sector for some advice. When you exhibit your work, in my opinion you are effectively communicating, or at the very least opening an communication channel, and you have to be willing to listen to feedback. If I make a piece in work in my kitchen and it stays there, I'm making that for me, but if I make a piece of work for a gallery or public environment, I have to appreciate that this work will be open to interpretation. I don't think the "art customer" is always right, nor do I think they are never right................

..............All to often people's critical appraisals are dismissed because the critic does not have the necessary qualifications or language to be considered of value. I think this needs to change. In my opinion some of the most interesting aspects of work are not the end products but audience reactions to the work, we must pay attention. By doing so we are transforming our audience into a community of interest and therefore can have a much more meaningful relationship with them. Blogs, open discussions, forums like this, feedback walls, I'm all for them and I think the next step is listening and responding, by doing so we are creating a circle of learning, where everyone involved gets extra value. Indeed, why is this only starting to catch on.....

Respect / Trust / Qualifications / Reputation / Authenticity. It's all important! Or is it? Twitter was mentioned in an earlier post as a nod at ubiquitous texting, the 'it's just there' understanding of technology. Twitter's community can be super powerful in 140 characters it can provide opinion, influence thinking, affect traffic, and enhance or destroy the success potential of whatever it chooses to discuss. On the web, and via the ubiquitous SMS, 140 characters is enough to provide opinion, criticism, review. Next time I'm an arts audience I will 'tweet' my 140 characters of opinion from the gallery to the world, instantly. This isn't a 'threat' to artists but it is how the rest of the world is starting to work. Audiences don't need permission to have opinion, and now they don't need galleries/arts establishment to share that opinion with the wider world. Digital is by its nature 'interactive' and so digital curating without 'asking the audience' seems very 1.0.....

It's strange that the coolness of technology has converted many to the benefits of listening and broader consensus decision making around cultural value. I'm working on the Open Spaces Event for the Futuresonic conference which takes place next week. It's a tried and tested method of participation where people are empowered to communicate their ideas. We'll also be using paper-based networking as well as online wiki's and Twitter. So Katie - you can tweet your responses to the conference sessions as we go along! I've not seen this in action - and am curious.

But I am reminded that many artists (see the Creative Commons & Artists research for ACE) are still wary of any kind of shared authorship, or leaving their work open to re-apropriation. Even collectively produced artworks are still name-checked by the 'Artist'. So although web2.0 has huge implications for cultural prodcution and distribution, we have to acknowledge that many artists make 'things' and people go to art galleries to look at objects. I think that one of the challenges of gallery curating is to root web based artworks and activities (as well as other art objects) in a real time and space location, where people can become engaged audiences. There are problems of 'give' and 'take' here too. Are participants as easily manipulated to produce content for an artwork as they are for the advertising revenue of google or facebook?

In my opinion ,with the ever-developing of digital products, the digtal works will play a important pole in the art works. I think the advantages of digtal arts is that they are very vivid and they keep the step with ages. It seems everthing is possible in the dital worlds. But on the otherhand, the digtal works are easy to copy and then refer to the problem of copyrights.

Ele, Yes, of course this is not a new thing at all. The web2.0 world has sort of appropriated the concept of collaboration and used tech tools to facilitate its explosion as 'the new thing'. And in many cases it is used in contexts where however supportive the community aspect, the end game is building users, interactions and therefore value (i.e. it is for profit). Also I agree, it is sold as 'cool' - and it seems every conference and event now must have an 'open' track of some form - although of course many people in the creative world do this naturally anyway. I think what is new, is the (tech enabled) choice offered to all participants (artists and audience). Personally I admit I'm not really a twitterer, I'm a Second Life 'naysayer', but I do blog. Maybe it's the multimodal opportunity that is starting to make interactions with digital work interesting. As in - we can all participate on our own terms in our own spaces?

In my opinion,ditigal art is the most symbolistic art of this age. It represents the advantage of technology and break the tradition of art. We can use it to express what traditional art can not express,such as sound and movement. It give us a more actual and all-sided feeling.

I am agree with you ,Miss Yan. It is quite ture that the digtal works are easy to copy and then refer to the problem of copyrights.

How to solve the problem of copyrights,this is what we must to think about.

In terms of "solving copyright problems" - is it not more about rethinking copyright altogether. Copyright was invented in a time very different from now. How about 'inventing' new methods of protection, attribution and reward for works? An artwork may be a collaborative peice; how can the collaborators be attributed? An artwork may be a technology 'intervention' - again not new but perhaps newly applied online - how can this be recorded, archived, etc? Copyright is about protection; do artists (working with digital or otherwise) feel they need 'protection'? From what? An online writer or blogger may argue that to claim something is to blog about it - i.e. the more open you are, the more you tak about your idea, the more protected it is. BTW, I'm not advocating a zero rights platform, but I'm interested in the debate around what people think the opportunities are for new levels of ownership / protection / distribution online.

Maybe Creative Commons works for web based work and not for artists working offline? I'll have to read that report! I can certainly see why the idea of publishing freely - no rights reserved - may be unappealing. But what does Copyright actually get you in today's society as an artist? Some years ago I worked on a commission and the commissioner owns half the copyright to the work. I felt like artists' copyright was like a series of restrictions on where and how I could talk about my work. (Just playing devil's advocate now)!

Only though the modern science and technology can it achieve the status today. It can be said that digital art is the highest crystallization and the wisdom of mankind ,also digital is the result of lazy .I think digital arts has more manners of experssion than our traditional arts,which is more easily and directly to express the artists's ideas,but at the same time ,it make the audience into a complicated situation that"The more intuitive it is ,the more people doubt its reality".

The first thing that came to mind when I read this question was the older gentleman in his suits, walking around the museum yelling at kids to "stop running" or "don't touch that".The curator is like the boss of the exhibition the one who set it all up the one with all the degrees. Now due technology and the use of the internet anyone can be a "curator" if they mean to or not as long as one has his own idea. Anyone that has created a website, a blog or even a Myspace or Facebook page is a curator in there own special way. Each one of these people have Art, Information and History that they want people to see. So they design, create and place things to show people their thoughts and ideas. That is what a Curator does they place the Art, Information and History in specific positions and places to show people what they want them to see. So yes the word "Curator" does need to change. It is not just that older gentlemen yelling. A "Curator" is also that 20 year old with a website.

The proliferation of digital imagings has been more and more seriously.The value of art works is not only in its artistic, but also in its uniqueness.We can see that photos were copied unending, the value continued to drop.So how can we protcet the uniqueness of digital art is a very important problem.

At the mention of 'copyright problems', I think the current copyright system is hard to implement in the field of digital art. Compare with the unique traditional artworks, the digitals are easily leaked and copied completely. On the other hand, most people add their works to websites for free, they want share their thoughts and ideas to else through the Internet (just like the things 'YouTube' do). That means most people don't even care about the protection of copyright. So now, I have a question, how can the digital art be commercial or where is the economic outlook of this 'no rights reserved' art?

Creative Commons does offer licenses which don't allow other people to use your work, as well as various levels of reuse or remix. Also see Copyleft, and i-rights. Creative Commons Business have a number of different economic models where profit is made, but not in the same way as traditional copyright. One of the problems with this seems to be that cultural material makes its money through advertising something else... (youtube for example).

Today,the society is day by day newer and the modern age is Information Era.Everything is seems to undertake great change,more and more new thing mushrooming and challeging our traditional values,excluding art.Frankly,when people think about and try to solve the problem that where fine arts will go in new media environment,fine arts disappear.Then we will ask:How does fine arts disappear?Though people talk about fine arts endlessly,they don't know what it really means.For several years our understaning of the concept of "fine arts"is lost in disorder,because it is difficult to define"fine arts";in the meantime,its concept becomes vague and open in the contemporary cultural context.Yes,maybe everyone has difficult comprehension to it.But ,I will say,no matter of ancient or modern or contemporary times,all that concern on humanity and nature are really "fine art".What it have to do now is to adapt to the new media environment.

Digital art is the kind of art which can shows the personality of people. The artists who engaged in digital art are also the part of people who always be the top of fashion. Most of them are different from the normal people, against to the darkness of the society. They are the original kind of people. I always have the feeling of longing and honored to the digital artists. Because there is no doubt that it requires a great courage to have forward looking and the vision of criticalness, as well as to against to the world. They will definetly suffer more criticism as the leading of the tredns. The hunker who cannot understand the digital art will think they are so grouding. To this situation, the digital artist really need to fight against to the difficulties. I believe the digital art is the inexorable trend of the developing of art.

I am an art student and I am studying in the Shanghai University,the art college.I am used to get the lastest information about contemporary art.

Nowadays, web has becoming more and more popular and the digital products become be widely used in the comment people as well.The web is just like an other platform.I am now interested in how to let ink painting integrate in the multimedia art.I guess it will be a digital smash and an new idea about contemporary art.

Nowadays, web has becoming more and more popular and the digital products become be widely used in the comment people as well.The web is just like an other platform.I am now interested in how to let ink painting integrate in the multimedia art.I guess it will be a digital smash and an new idea about contemporary art.

I feel this is a good space to provide art lovers a platform for exchange.Now, the digital age has becomed,so it should be also combine with art. As an art student, what I concerned is the developeing of contemporary art,including the digital art.From my point of view, the digital art can be close to our life.And I think it can be associated with the other art form.

I like this web since it can provide information to art lovers.The digital art is a kind of modern art and it is a necessary friend in our life.It make our life become convenience.What I interested in is the area of developement about the digital art .

About digital art and curating,I think it is a new area,and also very interesting.The web is another platform.The space you created can include many kinds of works as you like,and as your picture put in it which can be seen by other people who want to know them .I think it is good for spread. Then ,it also can be a busniess web ,if someone want to buy a picture,but he is far from the place which the real picture stay. however ,the art web will be useful for this situation, the buyer can see the picture through the web,and make some decition, that is more safe for art business .that is great.