From a conservation standpoint, again the responsibility should be with the artist for documentation. While electronic work is inherently less permanent than say a painting, having clear and comprehensive documentation can help extend the lifetime of a piece and at the very least serve as a permanent record of the piece and its operations as intended by the artist.

[As an aside, the idea of such documented work reminds of Sol Lewitt's drawing instructions and Casey Reas' processes.]

Unfortunately the above points are harder to apply to software works since operating systems and computer hardware have a whole slew of preservation problems, and even implementation problems.

As an example, I’ve worked almost exclusively with pieces controlled by dedicated electronics (microcontrollers etc.) which have required very little — mostly no — maintenance over the years. Whereas this year I have done a few computer controlled installations which required a lot of babysitting, including simple things like dismissing “update now” prompts from other software running on the computer (illustrating that most computers out of the box aren’t intended for on-going autonomous art installations).

I think there is little life left in the capitalism of art – the collection of art objects as assets, accruing value over time. As our society of peak waste declines in the very near future, technology will permit digital art to become self-contained and infrastructure-independent (though it will still need the electric power grid I am afraid). As part of the “green” or “eco-friendly” outlook, or in my view, inevitably scaled down resources of the coming increasingly overpopulated world, it is in every artist’s interest to consider the future she or he wants for any given work and build that future into it.

Society as a whole can’t seem to get this right, but maybe artists can lead the way.