Is it art if it's not a print?

Must art exist in a physical form? Can a photograph on a computer screen be art?

It seems to me that visual art must have physicality. Even if you can't actually touch it (no, you can't touch the Mona Lisa), there should at least be the possibility of touching it. Experiencing visual art implies a real, not virtual, connection to the piece.

There is an interesting exhibit at the Vancouver Art Gallery titled "Enabling Abstraction". It features abstract work by many Canadian painters, including Paul-Émile Borduas and Jean-Paul Riopelle. The physical presence in their paintings is overwhelming, with tidal waves of paint and colour.

We could copy these paintings using photography and post the pictures on the Web (probably, somebody has already done that), but viewing the result would not approach experiencing the originals face to face. You have to be able to move around the painting and experience how the light falls on the texture of the surface.

A less obvious example is also at the VAG in the exhibit, "Western Landscapes", featuring the work of Emily Carr, E.J. Hughes, Ann Kipling and Gordon Smith. The show includes sketches and preliminary drawings by Hughes that ultimately became paintings. Even these pencil marks have a physicality that could not be appreciated on-line.

Similarly, photographs have a presence and texture; subtleties of colour and tone that must be experienced in person. Whether it's a gelatin silver print, C print or an inkjet print, if you can't hold it in your hand, you can't experience the totality of the image.