As an art dealer, one of the things that I have discovered (as the web progresses and artists and artwork become an integral part of the Global Information Grid), is how adept the new young, savvy collectors are at detecting emerging young artists by the art of Googling them.

It is easy to see that lamestream media reviews are slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past, and what's more important (at least to a collector who is not familiar with an artist - but attracted to the work), is the digital footprint that the artist in question has on the Web.

Some, many artists do not seem to understand this yet... some do. Many gallerists certainly don't understand this. I know that our success as a gallery is a puzzle to many elitist people in this area who think they know a lot about art and galleries and yet have never ran one or sold any artwork. I was recently asked by a very important museum curator: "So, you guys are doing pretty good... getting a lot of press and making museum sales... who is your backer?"

She probably thought that I was kidding her when I answered that for our first couple of years it had been "Mr. Visa and Mr. Mastercard."

But I meander... look at your computer screen and see the future of art history. And the meat of selling art (and selling the artist).

The above rant was triggered by the failure of DC area artists and galleries to respond to Thinking About Art's call for artists to discuss their work and ideas and thoughts in 100 words or less. Several have responded and yet Kirkland is justifiably astounded as to the apathy which his project has encountered.

Sometimes I think that the "A" in Art around here stands for Apathy; and yet, now that Thinking About Art has opened its project to all artists (not just DC area), we should see a surge in interest from national artists, and a kick in the ass to our area's artists.