I recently ran across an article, Digital Aesthetics, in the Village Voice from September 2000. In it, the author, Jeff Howe, writes - "As technology progresses, so does the quality of artwork on the Internet, and major mainstream art institutions have begun to take notice." While I don't think this - the last part - has proved true in any interesting way over the past decade, his closing "note" is interesting. "Due to the multimedia nature of most of these works, it's best to prepare your browser by allotting plenty of memory to the application, as well as downloading a full range of plug-ins, from Flash to Shockwave to Beatnik, which are available for free at any number of sites."

While I'm interested in much of the work is often described as "new media art," it is not a term I find particularly productive, and I think the challenge, which is now much more tenable, is for curators is to provide a critical context for the work they are interested in that quickly moves past the starting line of "prepare your browsers" and, in particular, is willing to cross the boundaries not only of science and technology and software and politics but also contemporary art. What are the connections not just the differences? And why not include some different connections in our next exhibition?