From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 03/10/02-04:19:53 AM Z
FDanB@aol.com wrote:
>
> And I can't tell a diamond from a cubic zirconium...even if I do spit on
> it. ;^)
> That doesn't make them peg the same on the desirability meter.
Exactly. (although I'm surprised that Dan is the one to say it.) It
seems to me most people have gone off on a tangent on this one. The
question wasn't "Can an inkjet print be beautiful?" or "Can an inkjet
print mimic an alternative print very well?"" or any of the other
well-worn sidetracks about traditional vs digital that this discussion
has veered off on. The question was about the relative value of handmade
prints vs digital prints in the marketplace, given that adequate
reproductions of original alternative prints can now be made on the
inkjet printer.
I didn't say, and I don't think anyone said, that all handmade prints
are wonderful and valuable even if the imagery is forgettable and
mediocre; that's a silly idea that I don't believe anyone here would
subscribe to. The question was about an original alternative process
print vs a digital reproduction of that same print, the relative value
of. Not the relative value of a handmade print of a poor image vs an
inkjet print of a great image, or any other inapt comparison. To suggest
that folks who prefer the handmade print to the digital reproduction
are trying to hold back the hurricane of progress, is to miss the point
altogether.
kt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST