The problem with the advancing tide of technology is that image-making (be they still or moving, interactive or passive) becomes more about attaining perfection. It becomes more about creating a facsimile of reality that is more and more indistinguishable from actual reality. But aside from the fact that these reality facsimiles are, these days, in effect, often more real than actual reality (can we ever see life as crisply and “flawlessly” as an HD movie of such?)… since when has art – I mean “proper,” meaningful, arty art – been about “perfection”? Since when has image-making been about providing a mere, impartial lens, through which we can see what is merely “out there”? Before the advent of HDTV, high resolution digital cameras, Photoshop and so on… way before… before it was considered a luxurious novelty to be able to see a crackly, grainy, indistinct image on a five inch TV screen… did we consider an image to be “inferior” because we couldn’t see the expressions on the faces of the people behind the glass of the building which was part of the scene we were “capturing”? Were Monet’s water lilies to be denigrated because they were blurry, “low-res” and not very much like real water lilies?
And so on.