P3D Re: Boris' burning question

[JNorman805@xxxxxxx]

Boris wonders why stereo hasn't taken off to the point where people are ready 
and willing to make it pay.  At the risk of oversimplification, I think the 
answers are pretty simple.  Two words: INCONVENIENCE and EXPENSE.  We live in 
a remarkably passive culture.  Most of us are satisfied to sit in front of 
the TV with less participation than potted plants, absorbing whatever 
flickers before our eyes. Hell, we don't even have to laugh at sitcoms, 
because there are laugh tracks to do that for us.  In one form or another, 
stereo requires at least interaction, and usually requires the use of some 
sort of viewing apparatus.  Sure, those of us who are hooked don't find the 
additional burdens onerous (we even think that's part of the attraction), but 
we have to admit that most people are not drawn to the extra effort.  
Advertisers do what works. What they do now seems to work well enough to part 
people from their money.  Why should they spend more on the unproven chance 
that they might get more?  Also, consider that advertising is a form of 
brainwashing.  If you are an advertiser who depends on brainwashing to get 
Mr. Couchpotato to buy your utterly pointless product, do you want him to be 
an active, engaged, thinking person?  Or do you want him to be a passive, 
glassy-eyed automaton, programmed to reach for his credit card?

I don't believe that  Boris is doing what he does only for the money.  At 
least I hope he's not, because if he is, eventually we'll all lose one of the 
most brilliant practitioners of the art that we've ever seen.  If anyone 
should be able to make stereo photography pay the mortgage, it's Boris.  But 
if he can't, I hope he's able to find enough non-pecuniary satisfaction to 
stick with it. 

Jim Norman