IMHO, the technology to display a picture in a manner that approaches the resolution and size required by fine art does not yet exist.
Let me explain why...
If you look at Wikipedia's List of displays by pixel density
then you can see that we're starting to approach the point where really small displays (iPhone 4) are at 300PPI (does 1PPI = 1DPI?)
Once you've got a 80MP screen at 300DPI, then you've got to display the image.
If you consult Wikipedia's HDMI Version Table
, it's rather obvious that even HDMI is a long way away, as HDMI 1.4 can only drive 1080p at 16bit colour depth. 80MP would require 40 times that.
So not only do we need displays that currently do not exist, but also a mechanism to display the picture that does not yet exist.
... so if you were to attempt to do the "electronic fine art" today, you're either stuck with really small pictures or really bad detail. On top of that, you've got to attract quality artists to make their work only available via that mechanism (this is an instance of "The Numbering Affair") too in order to give it some kind of extra value above just displaying someone's flickr feed. Until the display problem is solved, I can't see the artist problem being solved.
There's something else that I forgot: upon reading the story about the attempt at delivering this back in 2003, the impression that I got was that the company did not understand enough about art purchasing. For example, when you buy and place a piece of art, it is to fit a particular place in the environment in which it is on display so you do not want that changing every 5 minutes, hours or days (or perhaps even months!) Whether it is at home or the office or a gallery makes no difference.