It almost seems counter-intuitive to think of digital art as temporary. Once something's on the internet, it lives forever, right? I was tripped up by this idea but then I remembered what I heart a tattoo artist say (on one of the many tattoo art shows out there--can't remember which) in response to someone who rejected tattoos on the basis that they're permanent: "Tattoos are the least permanent kind of art. We're all going to die." I got so caught up in thinking of the art itself that I forgot about its canvas--human skin. A material that will not stand the test of time. I think this is applicable to the idea that digital art is temporary. At least, as temporary as a tattoo. It will leave its mark in a moment but that moment will not last. It almost makes me appreciate the medium more, if that makes sense?

During tonight's studio visit with Brett, I found the idea of privacy and the digital landscape to be vastly intriguing. What I wonder about specifically is if this constant "watching" or surveilling/tracking has made us as a whole more performative--because we believe that we're always being watched. As evidence of this I would present the uptick I'm sure we've all noticed in "inappropriate content" being posted to these public, digital platforms (i.e. the Logan Paul & Suicide Forest video on Youtube (since removed), or the Facebook live vid of these 2 girls in Australia brutally beating up a mentally disabled girl, or the instagram live vid of a girl posted after a car accident which killed her sister). I wonder if the acknowledgment that we're being consistently watched or monitored has negatively informed our behavior in some big ways--that we feel posting this kind of content is okay and acceptable now. I guess I'm more interested in the social ramifications here of the tracking.