tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11526769.post3966159550530957866..comments2023-02-16T10:28:45.321-05:00Comments on Knowledge is cool.: Luddite ArtistsEva G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10461513928646645521noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11526769.post-39761654214674050342009-07-28T17:04:06.000-04:002009-07-28T17:04:06.000-04:00No. Art doesn't always imitate life, it creat...No. Art doesn't always imitate life, it creates it.Jennifer Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258592273685745465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11526769.post-41981362715946811772008-04-12T13:13:00.000-04:002008-04-12T13:13:00.000-04:00Sorry about adding a comment on this post so late ...Sorry about adding a comment on this post so late in the game, but I was just looking over your old blogs that I had missed and of course my eye went straight to the one with artists in the title. Then, after reading it, I had to defend the artists who lament the passing of Poloroid film...for I am one of them.<BR/><BR/>When I was an undergraduate art student, I made a series of painting based on Poloroid photographs. I took a bunch of Poloroids at the local mall and really enjoyed the quality (or lack of quality) that the camera and film produced. You can't get the kind of unplanned, serendipitous visions with digital cameras that you can with Poloroid. Plus there is a beautiful art process called Poloroid transfers that will now be lost. <BR/><BR/>Your analogy of Poloroid/digital cameras with printing press/computer is not accurate because the information gained by reading something produced on a printing press or a computer is essentially the same. To take away a medium from an artist is more like telling a musician that he/she can no longer play his/her instrument and must now rely solely on a synthesizer. In the end, both the musician and the audience miss out on a much richer experience.Brian Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503872953769837668noreply@blogger.com