"It seems, at least in this Juror's mind, that this year's IDAA is more Fine Arts than in previous years. This can be debated, of course, and bring up the question, "What comprises the Fine Arts?", but my point is that there's an overall increase in higher planes of thought with a high degree of technical expertise to convey such (better/above). Because of this, Digital Art ... within the confines of this IDAA ... is evolving in the direction that I think is needed for acceptance and sustenance within higher circles.

What are these higher circles, and is it important for Digital Art to attain this acceptance and sustenance? They are those institutions and other entities that perceive certain genres of Art and their selected works as Fine (better/above) and/or significant as a Movement and/or having an influence; and it is absolutely important for Digital Art to attain such. The Whitney Museum of American Art and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art have already established themselves as visible institutional supporters of this genre. And they will continue to do so with other institutions/entities joining, if Digital Art is created accordingly.

These criteria tend to intimidate, isolate, and create rifts, but Art History has shown with a reasonable degree of consistency that Art accepted and sustained in this fashion has indeed set those standards that are so important in defining the Fine Arts with Its various Movements. And Digital Art should be no different to begin to bring it into the fold and again as indicated by this IDAA.

Much wasted time has been devoted to articles and discussion whether or not Digital Art is Art. I feel that this is a moot point and even ludicrous to bring up this continual blather. Of course It is, and this IDAA reveals It as Fine."