Begin main content:

re; conversation

Stone Conversations : Archive 8 : Message 00033

From: "Marcus" <marcus@zzzzzzzzzzzzzz>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:49:18 -0500
Subject: re; conversation

Has it occurred to anyone how this whole debate raged over a hundred years
ago between photographers and painters? Gradually people came to realize
that the camera didn't just recreate reality, it just represented a tiny
slice of it, a representation that was nonetheless subject to an infinite
number of factors that were subject to the photographers' intentional or
accidental control. Through these factors photographers managed to achieve
an individual vision (some of them, at least) and show us a glimpse of soul
in a way we've never seen. If a sculptor uses digital machines to simply
copy another sculpture, that's fairly lame (although perhaps a way of
bringing mass production accessibility to consumers). But I don't see any
reason why a piece should be less meaningful due to its process.

That said, I do mourn the loss of skill with hand tools with such an ancient
tradition as stone carving. However I'm sure there will always be carvers
the same way there's still painters. And like painters, they will always be
able to achieve an immediacy and spontaneity impossible with machine
production.

Marcus

Quoted text begins.Something that has not entered this conversation is the monetary value of
a
one of a kind carving as opposed to a piece carved by machine that could
be
repeated many times, much like a print of an original painting.
I think part of the beauty (and value) of a work of art is uniqueness.
End of quote.


End of main content.
Begin local navigation menu:
End of local navigation menu.

©1998-2006 About Stone. Designed, maintained and hosted by Diversity Studio.

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.16 04 May 2007