Reaction to David Ross Lecture

If the frontier of art is really in question, it seems entirely probable that artists, critics and patrons alike would look to the new innovation of technology to guide the way. Like the ancient Greek culture, most of western society holds progress to be the ultimate goal. Being completely unaware that a lot of art being produced today does not manifest itself in the usual museums and galleries but on URL's coming to you on your personal computer came as a shock. What does this say about our historic way of looking at how art is showcased and commented on? It is well known that the Internet has made volumes of information available to us, but why isn't it known that art as well has become much more available? Why isn't it well known that most of art's innovations are right out there on the web, interactive bits and pieces of a veritable gold mine of ideas? Perhaps this net.art that Ross refers to is still on the fringe, or maybe because not enough light has been shed on this topic to the public, or maybe because the art is so effective as a multimedia it is hard to pinpoint if the piece of programming is for all intents and purposes, art?