Below the abstract and here the link to the full story:

Here the whole meeting:


1. Title:
"Does Digital Art Have an (Art) History?"

2. Aims and Objectives:
The proposed paper will examine some of the problems and possibilities
presented to art historians who wish to study and critique digital art in a
way which draws on accepted theoretical and rhetorical standards of art
historical research.

3. Summary description…:
In a field which is changing so rapidly, it is difficult to state with
certainty which works of digital art will be discussed in the final paper.
Examples might include the interactive installations of artists such as Lynn
Hershman Leeson, Char Davies, or Toni Dove; digital sculpture by Michael
Rees or Denise Marika; on-line works, such as the much-hyped "Brandon"
project, created for the Guggenheim Museum by Shu Lea Chang; and
digitally-altered photographs and prints by any number of artists.

4. Central arguments:
The proposed paper will address two key issues in the art historical
assessment of digital art: 1) the question of the relation between digital
art projects (particularly those whose iteration bears little resemblance to
traditional artistic practice and media) and the art historical tradition;
2) the need for the establishment of a critical language with which to
describe and evaluate works of digital art. In brief, the first question can
be addressed by, for example, looking at the spectatorial experience of
works of digital art and considering the relationship of that experience to
the Renaissance fascination with perspective or the innovative views favored
by late nineteenth and early twentieth century photographers. It can be
argued that these earlier artists desired to frame and manipulate the
spatial experience of the spectator in a manner which resembles the goals of
some contemporary digital artists. In regard to the second issue, that of
the establishment of a critical language for digital art, I believe it is
necessary for art historians who wish to effectively study, critique, and
teach the artworks produced in digital media to rethink the standard means
of describing and analyzing works of art. We are all thoroughly trained in
the language of color, line, form and so on - however, those categories
seldom serve us adequately when attempting to relate the qualities of many
digital works. Most obviously, in work created for the on-line environment,
a critical framework is needed which allows for the description and analysis
of aspects of interactivity, instability, and non-visual elements (such as
sound and time). The creation and adoption of such a framework by art
historians will be, I believe, a critical component in the acceptance of
digital art in the mainstream art world of major museums and universities.

5. Relation to themes…:
According to the schedule posted on your website, it seems that the paper I
am proposing might fit most logically with the themes to be addressed in
section 23.2, "The art-historical analysis of imagery created in digital
media". Should you find that the themes I propose to address are generally
applicable to that (or another) session, I would be happy to tailor my
presentation as needed to more accurately reflect the intended aims of the
session or to coincide with the presentations by other speakers.