Since at least Book X of Plato's Republic no one has come up with a better definition of Art than "derivative mimetic representations" of ideal forms. But, is "digital art" any different?

How will "interactivity", "virtuality", "ephemerality", "networks", "presence", "artificiality" and "trans-humanism" alter the traditional notion of a single author of a work attempting to achieve immortality? And does it truly matter? Or are we just prejudiced by the fact we have not yet seen digital Picasso's or Dali's?

Perhaps the pace of technology has outstripped the ability of artists to be the vanguard? Maybe we should begin looking to the neuroscientists to find a diagnosis for the symptoms we call Art?

There IS a nice ASCII bunny though.

Unfortunately, this comment sums it up well.