[DrJokepu]

This is a very interesting question. I believe that demos didn't "take off" simply because most people don't find them interesting. If you ask me, the main reasons behind this are the inherent geekiness of this subculture (it's difficult to appreciate the craftsmanship behind demos for most people) as well as the fact that most of the active "sceners" are typically young people who don't necessarily have enough life experience or maturity yet to be able send a meaningful message with a lasting value that could capture the attention of a wider audience (this was definitely true for me). By the time they "grow up", they have jobs and families and other responsibilities and don't have time to produce demos.

[leif]

I find this probably invalid, attractive though it may be. There are many "high art" forms that do not convey the massive effort put in to creating an image, yet it is this effort that makes the pieces desirable (lithography is one, but actually most art takes a lot more than the layperson realizes). Most examples of this came out of necessity but moved to an art form once the necessity was gone (though this was a very slow process). I think demos just haven't been around long enough for a larger artistic culture to build around them. Either art collectors will need to decide that demos are art, or the demo-scene itself needs to produce collectors. I think it's more likely that demos will become a small subculture within "programs as art", where art games will probably lead, since they are doing a better job of promotion and marketing outside their base.

The other thing demos are missing is an idea. Most media go through a phase where technique is paramount (in music, the virtuosos, in most visual art, loosely the "realists"), but the majority of fine art must address an important theme outside of the work itself to be interesting. Demos exist for themselves, they don't have any higher purpose. Games, in a small way, do, which may also account for their success so far.