Claire Bishop

This is an excellent article. I don't find it to be such a shock that there aren't many artists creating work that questions the effect of the digital age on art or perception. I think mainstream art will always embrace its marketability, and therefore unique and/or limited objects will continue to reign supreme. The situation is kind of sad though. At one time, art stood for the cutting edge, or at least this is what the avant garde artists were after. But rarely today do people seek experiences with art to find out what's cutting edge. I think that's because modern user technology is the new cutting edge. Interacting directly with new devices or software can be more entertaining and thought provoking than experiencing an art object. Heck, why not just experience art objects on your phone? saves you time and you can view greater quantities at your leisure. So then if art is no longer cutting edge, what is it? What is it's function? It seems to be mostly for novelty sake. This might be why analog media is so readily absorbed by mainstream art, because in a digital world, analog is arcane: it's rare and fancy. Analog looks good, and it's object based, and let's face it, it's cool. And if something is cool, it's marketable. Perhaps the few artists Bishop mentions, who are truly absorbed in questioning our digital paradigm, are the present cutting edge avant garde. So what if there are only a few artists in this category? Does art have to present an idea about its place in time to be important?