T3D Re: Digitizing "Art"

[Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Goldstein wrote:

>
> John didn't write this, I did.
>
> Noting the presence of the smiley, I do think it would help to clarify a
> point in your post...
>
> In the creative world, that which is created IS the original and frankly
> much or most of the time it's bearing on "real life" is either tangential
> or irrelevent! Irrespective of the medium, artists are engaged in the
> pursuit of the INTERPRETATION of reality. Very few are consumed with the
>

Thank you for posting the clarification.  I was aware of this aspect, but
didn't include it because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making
(that an analog version, no matter how perfect at the time of
digitizing (assuming it wasn't a digital creation to begin with) would
still deteriorate with time until some point where it is less like the
original than the digital copy made earlier).

Imagine if we had a digitally scanned version of the ten commandment's
stone tablets (etc)!  Added point being that the digitized version can
also be more immune to the original getting destroyed for some reason
in that multiple identical copies can be produced and distributed
to multiple physical locations.  Great libraries in history have
been burnt/flooded/earthquake'd (been watching the A&E channel
this morning) and all was lost.  I'm sure lots of great paintings have
been destroyed in history as well.

Mike K.



------------------------------

End of TECH-3D Digest 539
*************************