This is a great collection and worth looking at repeatedly. It's also not much different than a gallery website where you might flip through a slideshow of images in a show. When you look at a gallery's site you know you're looking at a show you either will or will not see in person. With Violet Strays being web-only (if I am understanding correctly), you know going in that you will not see the work in person. How does that change the experience of looking at it? Is this a personal version of Google Art, where you can look at artwork in museums you will probably never visit? Is "probably never visit" different from "cannot visit?" Also, what does "visit" mean?

Violet Strays is also like a well-curated tumblr. When you look at a tumblr the images are generally divorced from context other than the new context of that particular tumblr, and unless you know the sources, you will not see them in their original context. What's different between Violet Strays and tumblr?

It is hard for galleries to survive and that makes starting a gallery very daunting. Is this possible: Kindle is to book as Violet Strays is to physical gallery? Would Violet Strays ever do a pop-up brick-and-mortar gallery for a month or something?

Basically I have no comment but reading your post early this morning got me thinking about all of the above.

The two curators sites are also very much worth a look:
http://www.serrahrussell.com
http://sites.google.com/site/alyssavolpi…

Thanks for the compelling article, jen.
And Strath, I loved looking at your blog.
Thanks for asking questions.
They are precisely the questions that compelled us as curators to form Violet Strays.
Come "visit" the work of Jason Hirata this Friday!

p.s. Plans for a pop-up brick-and-mortar gallery are definitely in the works.