Manovich Article

I thought this article was pretty interesting and found myself agreeing with a lot of it. I was a little confused by it, but once he got into discussing the difference between digital and analog photography and contradicting notions of what each mean I agreed with a good portion of it.

I found his first topic on the relationship between original image and copies to be very interesting. This is a topic I have thought about and discussed with others as well. Personally I feel that an original image, such as in analog, does carry a lot of weight and importance. this applies especially when its an original print by an artist, scans and copies made by labs don't carry as much for me as an original. When it comes to digital I feel a little different as digital's usfullness comes in when it makes work more accessable to viewers, to me thats the best part about digital art.

He also commented on how digital technology is changing both cinema and photography. Although I feel traditional methods will always be crucial to a well founded artist, digital technology makes the creation process a lot easier. In making creation easier it also forces the artists to push themselves even harder now that there is more available to them.

One problem I did have with the aritcle was when he was discussing the unmanipulated image. Where he feels there is no such thing as unmanipulated images, I feel different. While the photographer is forced to make choices such as cropping and exposure, he is creating his own image. That image is an exact replication of reality before it reaches either the wet or digital darkroom.