If the word "art" follows Professor Ascott's definition, "any process, system or thing which serves to transform consciousness", then no - art is not dead. It is merely the definition that lies in ruins.
Problem: to define that which in its nature will escape any definition - to catch what cannot be caught.
Certainly many things are changing - new forms of production, new methods of distribution, and new experiences of (social/individual reception of) art. It is perhaps too soon to say what effect this has on the meaning of art more generally?

babel (Chris Joseph)

artist - Montreal, CA