Post #206228 by foamy on Sat, Jan 7, 2006 8:20 AM

The reason I asked the question is because sometimes when I mention to folks that a particular piece was born on the computer, any interest they may have had, suddenly goes away. I had the distinct impression that they were, perhaps turning their nose up at it. What I have a problem understanding was why was it desirable when they thought it was done in a conventional "artist's" manner and undesirable when it is learned that it was generated on a computer. Ya either like it or ya don't. Why is the medium so important? Because it's not limited? It can be limited easily. Far too easily (I lost 3 years of work in a crash, I was sick after that). If you take digital art and reproduce it in a traditional manner, say, a silkscreen, then all of a sudden it's acceptable to some of those folk and I kind'a understand that. Now we go back to the fact that, again, some people consider prints cheap copies of originals. So, how does that jibe when there is no "original"?