not direct

Written in response to a very long forum post which, boiling 1700 words down to a few, claims that digital is "creation" while film is "capture" and that for some reason, because digital is allegedly "direct." A lot of words that, in my view, don't actually say much.

----------

Digital isn't direct either. Instant gratification is a measure of a short attention span, not of reality.

Digital is a two-dimensional representation, pixels on an LCD or a monitor, of whatever we think reality is, which itself is reflected light passed through our eyes and interpreted by our all too human brains.

None of it is real. It's just a process, an interpretation. Kant and Shopenhauer, among others, expounded eloquently on the perception and "reality" of their own time... many years ago. So this is hardly a new debate.

In the end, it doesn't matter if it's done digital, or with film, or with a paintbrush, or a pencil, or a welding torch and metal. Or with words on paper, for that matter. The painter, the sculptor, the author, may be able to "see" what they are working with in front of them, touch it, yet it may take months to reach the final product. And you can't see the final product until it is final, just as with film and paper.

So I appreciate all the effort put into writing the original rant. But after reading all of it, my thinking has not changed. Each artist will continue to use whatever medium excites their passions of the moment. That's all that matters, the act of creation itself, however it is done. The world would be a slightly less magical place if any form of art dropped by the wayside and was forgotten.

And the people who are not artists, those who are still working to hone their talents and those who will never rise above mediocrity? Whatever they're doing, it's better than passively sitting in front of the television. No one is forcing me, or anyone else, to look at every photograph ever taken, some catch our attention, some are instantly forgotten. That is the way of the world.