If you haven't been over to Ten Thousand Pixels recently, I'd encourage you to spend a little time over there and see what we've been up to. This past week's posts were a bit of a twist on the format - each image was a link to some other site on the web. I provided the image and the link, and Steven LaRose provided the commentary.
This arrangement got me to pondering where, if it exists at all, is the art in this past week's posts? For some of the 10,000 Pixels posts, the "art" is the actual image - it's meant to stand alone as the thing under consideration. For others, the art is more the connection between the image and the week's theme, or the title of the post, or the post's label. The connection between the verbal and the visual, and not either element itself, is the artwork.
What I liked about this past week is that the "art" is somewhere between two different spots on the web. The images - mostly details of fairly well-known artwork - play off of the content found when you follow the link. So the art is in the connection, and it's a connection that's fairly unique to the web. So it seems to me that the "art" is very specific to the medium, which for me was one of the goals of the blog in the first place.